• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Should organ donation be compulsory?

Because of the higher risk of diseases like AIDS, hepatitis, and the like many systems reject for a period of time IV drugs users,sexually active gays, and even people who have recently gotten tattoos. I think when no other donor is available they could use a high risk donor if an informed recipient still accepts. This seems logical since those same groups are mostly rejected as blood/plasma donors.

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAN0849820220080108

reuters said:
Canada tightens rules governing organ donations
Tue Jan 8, 2008
By David Ljunggren

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada has imposed sweeping restrictions on who can donate organs for transplant -- including a ban on gay men who have been sexually active in the past five years -- and a leading doctor said on Tuesday he feared the move could deter potential donors.

The restrictions, which also cover drug addicts, prisoners, prostitutes and people who have had tattoos or body piercings in the last 12 months using shared needles, came into effect last month.

"The safety of the cells, tissues and organs intended for transplantation is paramount. These regulations are based on risk for safety purposes and not lifestyle choices," said a Health Canada spokeswoman.

The rules include a loophole that allows doctors to use healthy organs from a person in a high-risk group as long as they first inform the patient receiving the transplant.
Click to expand...
 
yup, instead of an organ donor registry, it should be a non-donor registry. opt out is a far better system.
 
Compulsory? No way. Then you end up with loads of organs so every daft bint who wasted their own through alcohol abuse or poor diet etc can just get a replacement when they fall ill, when really they should be left to die. Harsh but that's life.
 
In a way I think organ donation should be mandatory. I'm surprised how many people are against it on this thread. Do you not realize when you are dead you no longer have control of your body regardless of what you want?

I think every body should be sent to a medical college of sorts to be used somewhat productively. Its an odd concept to think that one is entitled to the rights of their body when they die.
 
Once I'm dead I won't have an opinion on what happens to my body because I'll be dead, if someone takes a lung or a kidney from my corpse I couldn't know or care.

However I am not about to make it easier for anyone to profit from my death by signing up as an organ donor, taking out any kind of life insurance policy, etc.

As much as I do not hold the right to stab someone in the kidney till they need a transplant, nor am I in any way obligated to provide someone with a working kidney. For any power to exert control over the body of another is unjust, mandating compulsory organ donation affirms that government/health organisations can assume authority over our bodies and yet we do not belong to them.

Who gets dibs on the corpse after a death? Worms? Family? Sick and needy? Cannibals? Cremation? Equal opportunity imo/finders keepers. I think there's something to be said for natural decomposition, get those nitrates into the soil. Not that wanting to donate to a cause isn't nobel.
 
Last edited:
CrackAndScrabble said:
I think every body should be sent to a medical college of sorts to be used somewhat productively. Its an odd concept to think that one is entitled to the rights of their body when they die.
Click to expand...

And rotting in the ground isn't productive? Like the leaf that falls from the tree to the soil, your body is ment to be recycled; the nutrient value digested by organisms and ploughed back into the soil so another generation of organisms can thrive.

I'm also against mandatory organ donation because I believe people are ment to die. We have this habit of trying to extend the life of people when really they should just die.. we have a ballooning population of people who are already brain dead just festering in homes because their children can't let them go (but won't look after them themselves) and on expensive medication that profits big companies.

And you want to allow a surplus of organs so that stupid fat unhealthy people, or other similar stupid people, can extend their life? People who need them such as serious accident survivors should obviously get priority, but money has a way of talking. There's too many stupid people and nature should be allowed to do its job of killing them off.
 
There's too many stupid people and nature should be allowed to do its job of killing them off.
Click to expand...

And we are to presume that you, oh wise one, High-Prophet of Social Darwinism and undisputed leader of the intelligentsia of the world, unequivocally do not qualify for your own hideous prescriptions re. imminent mortality and the ethical urgency of medical care? Do you truly believe that you are intellectually superior to obese people, drug addicts, diabetics, etc.? If so, I must humbly entreat you grow up and get a clue.
 
Did I say I was? No, you presumed as much. Your avatar fits you perfectly.

Nature knows best. Every life is evidently not worth saving.. we're not so special that we must save every last person from illness. And being intellectual has got nothing to do with it, nature couldn't give a shit about human assessed intelligence.. modern man is fucking dumb compared to people we refer to as "primitives". There's not much of modern man that would be worth saving in my book. We're diseased.
 
Did I say I was? No, you presumed as much. Your avatar fits you perfectly.
Click to expand...

Oh, please. It was heavily implied (and continues to be) by your haughty, snotty tone. Most people in their right minds would refrain from calling sick, dying people as such 'stupid,' nor make snide allusions to the effect of 'they're getting what they rightly deserve'; I type this in response to your ironical (and feeble) attempt at redirection.

Nature knows best.
Click to expand...

What a compelling argument. I guess I'll just have to revise all my attitudes re. organ donation and the concepts of disease and altruism.
 
Last edited:
If someone is 30 stone because they couldn't control their eating habit then why should organs be donated to them? Or someone whos wasted their liver through boozing all the time? They will just go out and waste their health again. That's my point, with a surplus of organs you're going to end up giving people a second chance who don't deserve one until they have reformed mentally first. I don't want my organs ending up in some fucknut who is going to waste them. If they go to someone who's been injured by another fucknut (or through sheer bad luck) then OK I'll give mine to them.

I'm against prolonging the life of wasters. We have far too many. Let them die. And yes nature knows best.. that is a non-argument. I don't care what you think about that, nature knows how to keep the balance and keep things running smoothly, man knows how to upset that balance for his own selfish ends.

ps If someone is 30 stone and dying because of their weight, then yes they are fucking stupid. I have sympathy for how they go to where they are, but they're still stupid.
 
Don't think that I fundamentally misunderstand you. Conceptually, your viewpoint may very well be compelling and noteworthy, but your post, in my opinion, skirted dangerously close to a BLUA/P&S Guidelines violation.

I'm against prolonging the life of wasters.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that's just it, man: Who determines the operational definition of 'waster,' here? You? How do you comprehensively define 'waster'? Someone whose perspectives and lifestyle choices differ from yours? You must perceive the inherent problems latent within the ultimata that are inevitably conjured by this morbid line of reasoning. Authoritatively demarcating the terms of human mortality (i.e., deciding a priori who is to live and who is to die) is an extremely radical and arguably vulgar thing for one human to do, especially when such demarcation holds the status of personal conviction. It is a distressing sensibility that you claim to possess. Need I remind you of the world-historically recent political regimes under which this sort of thinking predominated?
 
Wow. I'm sure people who are that obese probably have issues going on, it doesn't mean they are stupid. What makes you believe you are so superior to others? You remind me of Bob(keifer sutherland) in that reese witherspoon movie Freeway, "garbage people" . Sure you don't have to donate your organs if you don't want to but how can you blame someone for wanting a transplant so they can survive? Also a lot of people needing transplants have not lived unhealthy lifestyles, maybe they need bone marrow because they have leukaemia for example. Some people may think that an overweight or even a "stupid" person is more valuable to society who has compassion for others, and a willingness to pitch in than someone who may or may not be more intelligent but does not contribute anything positive to society because they don't feel society is deserving of them.
 
Conversely: It's one thing to make a statement of personal preference (i.e., "I elect not to donate my organs for reasons X, Y, and Z") - but SS goes further than that, extending his own (arguably) despicable ethos to a general rule:

I'm...against mandatory organ donation
Click to expand...

And, at any rate, it's not like any civilized Western society would refuse a social Darwinian/religious person/whatever the right to opt out of donation. I think everyone's simply contending that organ donation should be the general (default) rule and not the elective exception.
 
I've got an organ donor card, but I'm not filling it in so that someone else can use it after I die.
 
Hux said:
I don't particularly agree with the artificial extension of life. Death is a natural process, one which we should embrace and not something to be fearful of. I wouldn't want to receive an organ transplant, or be kept alive by machine for that matter, so I don't particularly agree with my organs being used for somebody else to shy away from the inevitable.
Click to expand...

Eating is an artificial extension of life. So are most other things in your daily life. So by your logic you should just stop doing anything that keeps you alive. Including breathing. In fact, one could argue that the act of doing nothing is, itself, something that is done. So any action you are not doing, which is in effect prolonging your life, should be ceased as well. So at this point you have no excuse for not doing anything and everything in your power to end your life.

Well, what are you waiting for?
 
-=SS=- said:
And you want to allow a surplus of organs so that stupid fat unhealthy people, or other similar stupid people, can extend their life?
Click to expand...

Oh Gosh! Did I imply that? I'll try to be more careful of how I word my sentences.

I believe that there are more pragmatic uses for deceased human bodies than throwing them in the ground. If bodies were sent to medical colleges then we could use them as tools for better understanding our biology. They would provide as a learning aid to better prepare future doctors and as a source of organs if they are healthy enough. You got me right about wanting to have a surplus of transplantable organs. I feel everybody can benefit from that, not just stupid fat unhealthy people.

What I don't understand about your whole view point SS is that you hold human actions ostensibly different than that of the rest of the natural world. Why are humans so special, in your perspective, than the rest of the animal kingdom? How come you deem our actions as "unnatural"?
 
in the republic of ireland they are talking about bringing in a law where every citizen will be considered a an organ donor unless they have a card stating they do not wish to donate. so the current system of identifying a donor will be reversed,which i think is brilliant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top