Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Should organ donation be mandatory?

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

Previous topic | Next topic

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

04 Sep 2011, 8:11 pm

psychohist wrote:
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.

Still, no ban is justified.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

04 Sep 2011, 8:24 pm

psychohist wrote:
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.

Sure, if you only look at 'economic efficiency' as the total good some activity produces for the whole society, as opposed to free market viability. There's a hell of a lot more that we do besides organ transplantation that would be killed under that rubric, though.



psychohist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

04 Sep 2011, 9:03 pm

LKL wrote:
psychohist wrote:
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.

Sure, if you only look at 'economic efficiency' as the total good some activity produces for the whole society, as opposed to free market viability. There's a hell of a lot more that we do besides organ transplantation that would be killed under that rubric, though.

The Indian case involved taking organs from "donors" by force - hardly a free market.



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

04 Sep 2011, 9:53 pm

Orwell wrote:
I would hesitate to make it mandatory, but I would prefer for the default assumption to be in favor of organ donation, and to allow people to opt out if they object.

I am registered as an organ donor. Once I die, my corpse may or may not be good for scrap components, but it certainly will be of no further use to me.


I like the idea of an opt out system, although recent events have weakened my resolve to accept others' idiotic religious beliefs.

I also have an organ donation card in my wallet.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

04 Sep 2011, 10:02 pm

Orwell wrote:
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.



One, I have no such hatred. I just do not love my fellow man unconditionally. But I believe in good manners. I help people I like or value and I ignore the rest. My default state is indifference to my fellow man (assuming he or she is not family).

Two, just because someone is a meany or indifferent does not mean his property rights should be violated. When a person dies, the next of kin have first call on the remains, not the State. If the next of kin want to donate the giblets, so be it. If the true owner of the giblets wants to make some kind of donation arrangement while he still is alive then he can do so with a living will. If a person is a meany and makes a will that requires his organs are buried or cremated -that is his right- as owner of the organs. If a person has no next of kin and has not made an arrangement then the State can take his giblets by escheat because he has died intestate.

Attitudes should have no bearing on legal issues, particularly one's rights. One has rights whether he is a jolly good fellow or not. And having the attitude -f*ck society- is not yet a crime in this republic.

ruveyn



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

04 Sep 2011, 10:08 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Two, just because someone is a meany or indifferent does not mean his property rights should be violated. When a person dies, the next of kin have first call on the remains, not the State. If the next of kin want to donate the giblets, so be it. If the true owner of the giblets wants to make some kind of donation arrangement while he still is alive then he can do so with a living will. If a person is a meany and makes a will that requires his organs are buried or cremated -that is his right- as owner of the organs. If a person has no next of kin and has not made an arrangement then the State can take his giblets by escheat because he has died intestate.

Attitudes should have no bearing on legal issues, particularly one's rights. One has rights whether he is a jolly good fellow or not. And having the attitude -f*ck society- is not yet a crime in this republic.

ruveyn

I am confused, because if "might makes right" is correct, then property rights only matter in as far as the "mighty" would care, and while if we accept the masses as being "mighty", they might allow some practical rules, why would they hold to the line of reasoning you do to a dogmatic point that is impractical?

Even further, if we evolved, and are Chimp 2.0, then aren't property rights simply a contingent property of our evolutionary history, and modifiable in response to the environment as any other trait?

I mean, I don't know how we can get from "might makes right" and "Chimp 2.0" to property rights as some ultimate trump-all moral rule. Even a person who believes that property rights are generally an awesome idea, still will lack some clear-cut deontological justification, as all we see are reasons for consequentialism on the matter. We disregard certain evolved traits, such as violent aggression, if they undermine our long-term welfare.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

04 Sep 2011, 10:10 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
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.

I did state that there was a very significant difference between mandatory organ donation after death and mandatory blood donation/community service during life. I simply then went a step further to say that, depending on the details, I could even support the far more extreme proposal of requiring certain sacrifices from the living as well.

As to blood donations: people die if the blood banks don't have enough of the right blood types. I think this qualifies as a "clear purpose" for compulsion. It certainly could not rationally be construed as "strip[ping] people of freedom for no apparent reason" as the reason is obvious: it is to save lives. The typical healthy adult can donate blood at only a minor inconvenience to themselves.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

04 Sep 2011, 10:12 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
I am confused, because if "might makes right" is correct, then property rights only matter in as far as the "mighty" would care, and while if we accept the masses as being "mighty", they might allow some practical rules, why would they hold to the line of reasoning you do to a dogmatic point that is impractical?

Even further, if we evolved, and are Chimp 2.0, then aren't property rights simply a contingent property of our evolutionary history, and modifiable in response to the environment as any other trait?

I mean, I don't know how we can get from "might makes right" and "Chimp 2.0" to property rights as some ultimate trump-all moral rule. Even a person who believes that property rights are generally an awesome idea, still will lack some clear-cut deontological justification, as all we see are reasons for consequentialism on the matter. We disregard certain evolved traits, such as violent aggression, if they undermine our long-term welfare.


Recognition of property rights is a necessary condition for having a civil and productive society. Since humans are tool makers and users of stuff from nature (that is the sort of beings we are) formulating the doctrine of property rights was part of the development of civilization. Cats and Dogs do not need such notions. Humans do.

ruveyn



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

04 Sep 2011, 10:15 pm

Orwell wrote:
As to blood donations: people die if the blood banks don't have enough of the right blood types. I think this qualifies as a "clear purpose" for compulsion. It certainly could not rationally be construed as "strip[ping] people of freedom for no apparent reason" as the reason is obvious: it is to save lives. The typical healthy adult can donate blood at only a minor inconvenience to themselves.

Look, the problem I see is that if we would need to exhaust the possibilities without removing a person's freedom on the situation. Yes, saving lives is important, but the loss is statistical, and we do accept certain statistical losses of life to preserve certain freedoms. I'd rather we simply try to expand on the voluntary system, even if by actively targeting certain blood types to donate. So, for instance, those with O blood types could receive various informational advertisements, and emotional inducements for donating blood. I still have to dislike any demand of time from a person unless absolutely necessary. The rules have to strict, and yes, the rules have to probably be stricter than what would be justifiable by pure utilitarianism simply because a political system will vary from a purely utilitarian framework due to power play.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

04 Sep 2011, 10:19 pm

Orwell wrote:

As to blood donations: people die if the blood banks don't have enough of the right blood types. I think this qualifies as a "clear purpose" for compulsion. It certainly could not rationally be construed as "strip[ping] people of freedom for no apparent reason" as the reason is obvious: it is to save lives. The typical healthy adult can donate blood at only a minor inconvenience to themselves.


Simple question for you: Who owns your blood? You or the State?

No one has the obligation to save a stranger from harm. Everyone is forbidden from inflicting harm on others, except in self defense. Each of us are the owners of their bodies and their time. No outside party has an a priori claim on either.

I swear by my life and my love of it that I will not live for the sake of another nor will I require another to live for mine.

ruveyn



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

04 Sep 2011, 10:23 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Orwell wrote:
As to blood donations: people die if the blood banks don't have enough of the right blood types. I think this qualifies as a "clear purpose" for compulsion. It certainly could not rationally be construed as "strip[ping] people of freedom for no apparent reason" as the reason is obvious: it is to save lives. The typical healthy adult can donate blood at only a minor inconvenience to themselves.

Look, the problem I see is that if we would need to exhaust the possibilities without removing a person's freedom on the situation. Yes, saving lives is important, but the loss is statistical, and we do accept certain statistical losses of life to preserve certain freedoms. I'd rather we simply try to expand on the voluntary system, even if by actively targeting certain blood types to donate. So, for instance, those with O blood types could receive various informational advertisements, and emotional inducements for donating blood. I still have to dislike any demand of time from a person unless absolutely necessary. The rules have to strict, and yes, the rules have to probably be stricter than what would be justifiable by pure utilitarianism simply because a political system will vary from a purely utilitarian framework due to power play.

As I said, it would depend on the details of the system. If we are going to a system where government agents call at your house every three months, strap you down, and take a pint of blood by force, well, I agree that that is clearly crossing a line. An expansion of the voluntary system should be the first attempt at filling the gap. Probably any "mandatory" system would be set up in such a way that it relatively easy to duck out of one's obligations.

However, we already accept the loss of several freedoms, and the imposition of a great deal of inconvenience, in order to prevent loss of life from statistically far less dangerous threats such as terrorism. Surely our policy-making must be regarded as profoundly irrational if we accept certain impositions over a comparatively minor threat (and with no guarantee that it will help) while opposing a very concrete benefit coming from a relatively minor imposition.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

04 Sep 2011, 10:24 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Recognition of property rights is a necessary condition for having a civil and productive society. Since humans are tool makers and users of stuff from nature (that is the sort of beings we are) formulating the doctrine of property rights was part of the development of civilization. Cats and Dogs do not need such notions. Humans do.

ruveyn

A tool is a tool. We only use it until it no longer adds value. Property rights add value by allowing human beings to exchange without involving incentive problems, and by providing stability. However, how does THIS application help mankind? If this is a tool, we can modify it as we need to. This means that if a particular line of reasoning is not helpful to mankind, then that line of reasoning has no justification. Your use of property rights, as a justification, not as merely a tool, thus is a problem.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

04 Sep 2011, 10:26 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Recognition of property rights is a necessary condition for having a civil and productive society. Since humans are tool makers and users of stuff from nature (that is the sort of beings we are) formulating the doctrine of property rights was part of the development of civilization. Cats and Dogs do not need such notions. Humans do.

ruveyn

A tool is a tool. We only use it until it no longer adds value. Property rights add value by allowing human beings to exchange without involving incentive problems, and by providing stability. However, how does THIS application help mankind? If this is a tool, we can modify it as we need to. This means that if a particular line of reasoning is not helpful to mankind, then that line of reasoning has no justification. Your use of property rights, as a justification, not as merely a tool, thus is a problem.


That may be true, but if it is OUR tool, we can dispose of it as we see fit. The owner of the tool has the first say in it use and disposition. Not Society, Not the State.

A civilized person knows the difference between "mine", "yours" and "his" and does not confuse any of these with "ours".

ruveyn



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

04 Sep 2011, 10:29 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Simple question for you: Who owns your blood? You or the State?

I do, but my body produces more than I need. It is no harm to me, and great benefit to others, to give some of it away now and again. Blood donation is Pareto efficient.

Quote:
No one has the obligation to save a stranger from harm.

There is some moral, if not legal, obligation. And there are some situations where there is a legal obligation to protect another from harm.

Quote:
Everyone is forbidden from inflicting harm on others, except in self defense.

Also not entirely factually correct.

Quote:
Each of us are the owners of their bodies and their time.

Humans cannot actually be property, and thus we do not "own" our bodies in the traditional legal sense.

Quote:
No outside party has an a priori claim on either.

Society does. That is part and parcel of living in civilization. We give up some measure of our autonomy in exchange for the protection and benefits that civilization can offer us.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

04 Sep 2011, 10:29 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Simple question for you: Who owns your blood? You or the State?

No one has the obligation to save a stranger from harm. Everyone is forbidden from inflicting harm on others, except in self defense. Each of us are the owners of their bodies and their time. No outside party has an a priori claim on either.

I swear by my life and my love of it that I will not live for the sake of another nor will I require another to live for mine.

ruveyn

Is that a simple question? If property rights are a tool discovered by society... then isn't that tool, and the validity of it up to society to maintain or suspend? If the state is the representative of the will of society, then is it improper for the state to suspend the general operation of property rights(assuming that you are even right in interpreting the workings of that tool, as often human bodies are not explicitly conceived in such systems) for the purposes of promoting greater human welfare?

As for your last statement, what is the point of saying "nor will I require another to live for mine"? If this is a matter of natural self-interest, WHY NOT require others live for your life? I mean, seriously, all manner of creatures have other creatures live for their aims. Why not you? What is the difference in terms of your survival of a slave vs a cow?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

04 Sep 2011, 10:31 pm

Orwell wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Simple question for you: Who owns your blood? You or the State?

I do, but my body produces more than I need. It is no harm to me, and great benefit to others, to give some of it away now and again. Blood donation is Pareto efficient.



I agree. That is why I donate platelets. I am a thirty gallon champion. But I will not permit my blood to be taken from me against my will. My blood is MINE, and I will dispose of it as I see fit. And if my enemy were bleeding to death I would not give him a drop.

ruveyn