Should organ donation be compulsory?

[voxmystic]

If you feel that the practice of transplanting organs is appropriate, then how do you feel about cannibalism? A logical arguement could be made for that, too, for the same reasons. Yet it's never been a popular practice, even when food was scarce.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

I think it's kind of logically inconsistent to tell people that their future incapacitated selves (living will and advance directives) and bodies (final will and testament, funeral plans) are their own responsibility and fully within their rights to make binding decisions about, but that their own organs are not theirs to keep at time of death. If it's legally guaranteed that anyone who dies will have their organs harvested and investigated for transplant-worthiness, it's a slippery slope from there to seeing living people as merely sources for organs, and pulling this off, when expedient, by sleight-of-paperwork. It becomes a bit of a Soylent Green type of scenario.

I think that stem cell technologies that allow people to send their marrow to a company in Asia that'll custom grow an organ -- any organ or tissue -- in vitro from their own germline, will ultimately make the entire practice of organ donation obsolete, and this whole argument moot.

Hux has a point -- the point of medicine is maximizing quality of life, not quantity, because everyone dies, and nobody lives past 125, really. I don't see the problem with organ growing (or organ transplant) projects -- they don't extend the base human lifespan past about 125, and probably do provide increased quality of life to those who need them. I doubt even a person's own, unrejectable transplant would extend most recipients lives by many years, since most people sick enough to need a transplant have a lot wrong with a whole lot of things in their body, not just that organ.

Once organ growing gets up and running, I can see fierce debates in countries with socialized healthcare about whether they should be covered for any and all who need any new organ grown and implanted. Might I choose to take up cigarette smoking with reckless abandon if Uncle Sam'll buy me all the new pairs of lungs I'll ever need? How bout some new teeth if I choose to be a tweaker?

 

[vegan]

If you feel that the practice of transplanting organs is appropriate, then how do you feel about cannibalism?

killing humans to eat them or eating dead ones?

in the first case, your question has nothing to do with the subject since organ transplant concerns already dead victims

in the second case, i prefer that whoever feeds on meat does so on already dead humans than by killing living animals or humans

When my infant daughter died, I would have KILLED anyone who cut her precious body and removed any part of her

if the friend of your daughter had been in the exact same condition as your daughter at the time she died, but could have been saved if you allowed for, let's say, a heart transplant.
would you have refused it?

if yes, what do you think some people may think about your actions?
people like the parents of the friend for instead

what about if the friend had died and your daughter could have used his heart?
what would you have thought of their parents after they had refused to save your daughter?

I would have KILLED anyone who cut her precious body and removed any part of her. Let the worms do their thing.

did you kill the worms?

cause if not, there's a serious flaw in your logic

after how many days is the body less precious?

one day after it's too late to use its organs?

plus you get more time for surgeons than for worms

 

[voxmystic]

cause if not, there's a serious flaw in your logic

I never meant to suggest that I was trying to defend my feelings with logic. Logically, organ transplants and eating the (already) dead makes a macabre sort of sense, but both ideas cause me to recoil emotionally.

It wasn't an option, but I don't think I could have allowed my child's organs to be harvested, no matter who would have benefitted. Call me all kinds of selfish bitch. I was burying my baby. If you've ever done that, you will understand that not many logical thoughts occur to you at such a time. If you haven't, I don't see how you can pass judgement, even implicitly.

It may be of interest to note that I thought I was on the other side of this issue before I lost my child. I didn't really know how I felt about it until it was close to home.

 

[vegan]

Logically, organ transplants and eating the (already) dead makes a macabre sort of sense

only if, as hux said, you're scared of death

not meaning sad about it
but unable to face it and accept that when it happens, all the taboos in the world won't reverse it

as far as we understand, what is left is mainly water and carbon
nothing to be overly sensitive about

consider the question "what does blood represent to you?"

some may answer :
death
others will answer :
life

last year there were clashs with many dead and injured here
i tried to give my blood
blood meant life in this case

I was burying my baby

i'm sorry to be talking about this

but what made your kid herself was not cells and now decomposed tissue

it was her smile, actions, etc. warped in a physical body

once she died, the body was only a picture of herself
and contrarily to a picture, the body was not going to last
and contrarily to a picture, the body could have saved others' lives, who would still be grateful today for your sacrifice

it's kind of spoiling the plot to mention it here, but have you seen the movie

NSFW:

seven pounds

?
it may help you see things from others' point of view
and also see how in a way, if you are attached to the material aspect, your daughter could still be "alive" through her gifts to others

you will understand that not many logical thoughts occur to you at such a time

i understand very well

it's also useful to train oneself to overcome feelings with reasoning at times when the consequences can be very important to others

 

[vegan]

just a short note, to show how our treatment of a dead body is so strongly influenced by our culture

have you heard of sky burial in tibet?

 

[L2R]

^for years i've been saying that that is the way i want to be disposed of.

 

[wooger]

to answer my own question, they can take anything cept my eyes, I just hate the idea of taking thoe out, tho I know I shouldnt, cus it could help peple who hae lost their sight

 

[Whodathunkit]

If it was compulsory...then the questions begs to be asked...

"Who deserves?"

 

[qwe]

I doubt anyone would accept my fucked up organs. I'm not even allowed to donate blood.

this is a good q - are drug user organs used? seems like a waste if not (damaged but functional organ is better than death and the damage reverses over time)

i look forward to when we can grow or synthesize organs and limbs. (50-150y imo)

 

[voxmystic]

i look forward to when we can grow or synthesize organs and limbs. (50-150y imo)

Looks good on paper, but when people quit dying from wearing out their organs, what are we gonna do with them all? I'd certainly not be in favor of extraplanetary colonization, given the mess we've made of our own planet....

 

[MynameisnotDeja]

It should be up to the individual whether or not they want to donate their organs. I wouldn't judge a person either way. I have a donor card, I think it would be cool for my eyes or heart or some other part of me to live on in another if I were to die in some accident or something. Especially since I've worked so hard to purify and strengthen my body with the absolute best organic foods, good energy and exercise. Whoever got my organs would get a nice little boost.

But seriously, I hope to die at such an old age that everything is too worn out to use anyway.

 

[qwe]

Looks good on paper, but when people quit dying from wearing out their organs, what are we gonna do with them all? I'd certainly not be in favor of extraplanetary colonization, given the mess we've made of our own planet....

if we can synthesize organs and limbs, then we can make food out of rocks. that'd be about the point where we'd be pretty much in control of atmospheric weather.

what if, in order to fix our planet, we need to progress into the solar system first? and i'd be 1000% in favor of interplanetary migration: we'd have a chance to start new colonies, new ways of being human. denying people from colonizing the solar system would be like britain denying people to go pioneer the new world before america... i think it'll be highly interesting if people start colonizing the moon or mars in our lifetime.

i think humans definitely have the potential to make this planet and others quite beautiful... whether we go the beautiful route or not, it'll be a fun ride, and in order to address all of the suffering going on right now, we have to move forward technologically.

 

[voxmystic]

^Just because we can all eat and have functioning organs and even good weather doesn't mean we can get along. You cram too many people together, it makes them insane. Where shall we go for solitude?

And what about all the other species with which we share the planet? Just tough luck for them?

We've been a cancer on the face of the earth. I don't think spreading the disease is a good answer.

 

[qwe]

^Just because we can all eat and have functioning organs and even good weather doesn't mean we can get along. You cram too many people together, it makes them insane. Where shall we go for solitude?

yet you're not in favor of space migration?

at the level of technology we're discussing, we'll "have room"... there'd be nothing preventing us from living in the air or the sea. 100% of the globe would be "habitable".

And what about all the other species with which we share the planet? Just tough luck for them?

the more advanced our technology is, the more capability we have to look out for ourselves while either A) leaving other ecosystems alone or better B) improving the health of our biosphere.

i'm not advocating we build a bunch of factories, i'm advocating we pour our money into research so that we reach the point where one factory does the work of 1000 with 1/1000 the impact on the environment.

when we consider the future, we can't consider one technology in isolation...

We've been a cancer on the face of the earth. I don't think spreading the disease is a good answer.

what species isn't a cancer in that sort of way? even plants exist by consuming the energy and complexity of its surroundings.

with all of the good we have accomplished, the suffering abolished so far, you don't think we can continue in this direction?

consider your very idea that we're a cancer because we're disrupting life on our planet... that idea came about through thinking... it exists due to a social evolution of ideas, an evolution that is fundamentally linked with technology:

humanity came to be, eventually reached a level of complexity where some of its individuals realize that "we're fucking everything up in an unsustainable way". if we can get to that point, why can't we get farther. why can't we reach a level of complexity where we start thinking "we have the capability to change our direction for the better, for us and our environment"? well, i suppose we have reached that point...

 

[socko]

I mean...

I doubt there are many people out there who would refuse an organ transplant.....

I would. I don't love this life enough to undergo such an ordeal. In turn, I won't be donating my organs.

 

[hobhead]

i am an organ donor but not my Wurlitzer . in addition i carry a card that says that the state medical teaching college has dibs on the carcass.
i feel it best to have the stiff be of some use rather than box it, burn it, stuff it - fuck the worms!

my town doc is a friend and he had me cracking up when he told me about the stiffs that they kept around for surgical instructors to use in teaching the craft.
the students had made up names for them as in ''oh we have to open up Delbert again''.

as for do not resuscitate, etc. - when the paramedics arrive they do not look in hand bags nor wallets- they are trained to intubate . about the only chance one has to stop the process is the refrigerator . they will look for a medical directive hanging on the fridge .
that is no bull spit - the fridge is where they will look.

 

[voxmystic]

yet you're not in favor of space migration?

at the level of technology we're discussing, we'll "have room"... there'd be nothing preventing us from living in the air or the sea. 100% of the globe would be "habitable".the more advanced our technology is, the more capability we have to look out for ourselves while either A) leaving other ecosystems alone or better B) improving the health of our biosphere.

i'm not advocating we build a bunch of factories, i'm advocating we pour our money into research so that we reach the point where one factory does the work of 1000 with 1/1000 the impact on the environment.

when we consider the future, we can't consider one technology in isolation...what species isn't a cancer in that sort of way? even plants exist by consuming the energy and complexity of its surroundings.

with all of the good we have accomplished, the suffering abolished so far, you don't think we can continue in this direction?

consider your very idea that we're a cancer because we're disrupting life on our planet... that idea came about through thinking... it exists due to a social evolution of ideas, an evolution that is fundamentally linked with technology:

humanity came to be, eventually reached a level of complexity where some of its individuals realize that "we're fucking everything up in an unsustainable way". if we can get to that point, why can't we get farther. why can't we reach a level of complexity where we start thinking "we have the capability to change our direction for the better, for us and our environment"? well, i suppose we have reached that point...

I'd like to feel this optimistic. For all our sakes, I hope you're somewhere close to right.

 

[qwe]

well, if i'm wrong, we either ruin our own changes in some way (analogous to like we did to ourselves in the dark ages) or an asteroid hits us or something stalls technology from continuing its exponential trend (some sort of social control mechanism perhaps). it's a chaotic universe it's true that we can't be optimistic all the time

 

[Fawkes]

this is a good q - are drug user organs used? seems like a waste if not (damaged but functional organ is better than death and the damage reverses over time)

i think it probably depends on the drug, the donor and the recipient. though some damage can be reversed, receiving such an organ is considered high-risk due to the low quality of the organ and risk of infection. i'm not sure how frequently it occurs, but i've read numerous stories about bodies rejecting a healthy, donated organ - imagine if that organ wasn't healthy to begin with....?

my mom was an organ donor, but also a long-time smoker. she had a heart-attack and though the medical staff were able to eventually revive her heart, the lack of oxygen turned her vegetative. i think that would have been a perfect condition for her to become a donor, but the staff never asked and i assumed it was due to her smoking and overall, unhealthy lifestyle.