Should organ donation be mandatory?

Page 3 of 7 [ 110 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

03 Sep 2011, 2:42 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

LKL wrote:

cave_canem wrote:

LKL wrote:

cave_canem wrote:

Apple_in_my_Eye wrote:

I.e. I read recently about some cases of people in a "permanent vegetative state," who, when given a sleeping pill (zolpidem), woke up. So, apparently, determining when someone is brain dead is not an exact science.

I am not medically trained, but I do believe there is a big difference between being in a "permanent vegetative state" and being "clinically brain dead."

I saw the show you are talking about. Those in a vegetative state are still able to breath on their own. Those who are brain dead must rely on machines to keep their body "alive." Without a ventilator, they would suffocate.

I don't think this is true, actually; functions like breathing and heartbeat are controlled by very primitive regions of the brain/brainstem, and a person is 'brain dead' when the cerebrum stops working. I've seen someone whose brain was literally leaking out their ears but still had a heart rate and minimal breathing.

Fair enough. Like I said, I'm not a doctor.

I guess it was because of the show I saw (the one Apple referred to). The people Apple was talking about were clearly not brain dead. I googled it - looks like they were catatonic, not in a vegetative state. There's a big difference between those two conditions, it seems.

There is a *huge* difference. Catatonia is chemical; PVS is neurological.

There have also been people in a "brain dead" state that have recovered completely after the doctor pronounced them brain dead.

evidence, please?

cave_canem
Deinonychus

Joined: 14 Nov 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 378
Location: Canada

03 Sep 2011, 8:12 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

One thing I want people to consider, what is to stop a doctor from declaring someone dead and then harvest said person's organs for a high-paying client.

As far as I know, in Canada, that would not be possible. Because the doctor wouldn't be able to charge whatever they wish for a given procedure. Visagrunt (or someone else familiar with the legalities of Canada's medical system) could probably confirm for me.

Maybe a "pro" for socialized medicine?

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

03 Sep 2011, 10:39 pm

cave_canem wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

One thing I want people to consider, what is to stop a doctor from declaring someone dead and then harvest said person's organs for a high-paying client.

The client could still bribe the doctor. However, that applies to the current system just as much as it would to our hypothetical one.

VIDEODROME
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,691

04 Sep 2011, 1:04 am

I should just give away a gift as precious as human organs for free?

Something seems out of balance. If I need medical care they demand insane amounts of money from me. Yet this same industry would encourage me to sign off on my body parts for free.

I think organ donors should receive a substantial discount on healthcare in return for what is an extremely valuable gift of literally, themselves.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

04 Sep 2011, 6:35 am

VIDEODROME wrote:

Not a bad idea. Trade organs for medical care. It would be purely voluntary, too.

ruveyn

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

04 Sep 2011, 3:22 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Orwell wrote:

I don't see any justifiable reason why someone would want to opt out (come on, you're not using it anymore!) but people are weird and irrational about death, so it is probably more sensitive to let them maintain their queer practices if they insist.

What if a person is an ungenerous s.o.b. in life. Why should he spoil a perfectly bad record in death?

If you have such hatred for your fellow man and for society in life, why should they not return the same measure of disrespect back to you? If you owe nothing to society, neither does society owe anything to you, and thus is under no obligation to honor your ridiculous wishes.

Quote:

Besides, it is a bad precedent to make the State the prime recipient of our flesh. Pretty soon the State will require blood donations in addition to taxes from its citizens/subjects. Or community service (aka slavery).

Obviously a deeply flawed analogy. Mandatory blood donations and volunteer work impact on the choice of a living individual, while harvesting the organs of the dead does not.

In any case, I'm not even certain I would object to those. Many countries require some amount of compulsory national service (either in the military or in some other capacity) and I see little difference between requiring community service and taxation. As to blood donation, the benefit of saving lives certainly outweighs the cost of compelling someone to experience a few minutes of minor discomfort.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

04 Sep 2011, 4:52 pm

For all of the whining about "it's my right", this really is not a bad idea at all. I mean, I'd rather opting out or markets for organs or something else of that nature, but really? Even making this mandatory isn't going to have many problems relative to the current system.

In short, the mandatory standpoint has a really strong case as there is limited economic loss from not harvesting organs. As well, the incentive problem issues are probably overstated.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:

04 Sep 2011, 4:52 pm

No.

Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

04 Sep 2011, 5:00 pm

Orwell wrote:

Many countries require some amount of compulsory national service (either in the military or in some other capacity) and I see little difference between requiring community service and taxation.

When I was in the military, I heard a number of stories from people who had been in for quite awhile about how things were back when we had a draft. There were apparently places on aircraft carriers that you just didn't go, because of gangs.

I think that requiring people to pay some money to the government, so the government can exist and function is vastly different from forcing people to engage in activities not of their own choosing.

Quote:

As to blood donation, the benefit of saving lives certainly outweighs the cost of compelling someone to experience a few minutes of minor discomfort.

Compelling someone to give body fluids is the problem, not the minor discomfort. If the state takes people's blood from them by force, there is something seriously wrong with the state. People own themselves, the state doesn't own them.

_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:

04 Sep 2011, 5:07 pm

I started a supplemental poll for this thread HERE.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

04 Sep 2011, 5:08 pm

Ancalagon wrote:

I think that requiring people to pay some money to the government, so the government can exist and function is vastly different from forcing people to engage in activities not of their own choosing.

Compelling someone to give body fluids is the problem, not the minor discomfort. If the state takes people's blood from them by force, there is something seriously wrong with the state. People own themselves, the state doesn't own them.

I agree with Ancalagon's point and am very opposed to being compulsed into any form of service or behavior. I mean, cutting up a corpse for parts is one thing, but compelling me, a living person, is overstepping some bound. Particularly given that there has to be a CLEAR PURPOSE in this behavior. We can't just strip people of freedom for no apparent reason, instead, this has to be for very good reasons.

psychohist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,623
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

04 Sep 2011, 6:17 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

In short, the mandatory standpoint has a really strong case as there is limited economic loss from not harvesting organs.

I suspect the opposite is true: organ transplants are sufficiently expensive that they are likely a net economic negative for society, despite the lives prolonged. Banning organ transplants entirely might actually be the economically rational path.

cave_canem
Deinonychus

Joined: 14 Nov 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 378
Location: Canada

04 Sep 2011, 6:33 pm

psychohist wrote:

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

In short, the mandatory standpoint has a really strong case as there is limited economic loss from not harvesting organs.

I don't think that the argument that it is prohibitively expensive to perform transplants is correct. Iran has a thriving live kidney donation market.

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

04 Sep 2011, 6:48 pm

cave_canem wrote:

psychohist wrote:

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

In short, the mandatory standpoint has a really strong case as there is limited economic loss from not harvesting organs.

I don't think that the argument that it is prohibitively expensive to perform transplants is correct. Iran has a thriving live kidney donation market.

Not to mention the thriving black market kidney program in India.
http://www.naturalnews.com/024288.html

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

04 Sep 2011, 6:50 pm

LKL wrote:

cave_canem wrote:

psychohist wrote:

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

In short, the mandatory standpoint has a really strong case as there is limited economic loss from not harvesting organs.

I don't think that the argument that it is prohibitively expensive to perform transplants is correct. Iran has a thriving live kidney donation market.

Not to mention the thriving black market kidney program in India.
http://www.naturalnews.com/024288.html

Yeah.... I actually basically agree with cave_canem and LKL. Organ transplants are expensive, but people live longer because of them, and these lives can be very valuable to those who live them. Heck, any notion that transplants are a net negative would probably have to have really good justification to claim if it is also claimed that such services would be purchased by a market.

psychohist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,623
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

04 Sep 2011, 7:30 pm

LKL wrote:

Not to mention the thriving black market kidney program in India.
http://www.naturalnews.com/024288.html

I notice that it seems to be a small number of the wealthiest Indians who can afford it, not the average person with a failing organ. The numbers are that 29 medical professionals were employed to do about 50 kidney transplants a year, which is questionably an economically efficient use of resources - and kidney transplants are among the easiest kind of transplant to do.

Page 3 of 7 [ 110 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Jump to:

Should organ donation be mandatory? Post Reply New Topic

Should organ donation be mandatory?