I don't necessarily agree with the whole "why would you decide to opt out of SAVING LIVES ;__; you are so selfish" point. Not because I can refute it, but because it's just a moot point. You could say it's selfish of me to want to keep my organs instead of using them to save lives when I'm dead, and I could say it's selfish of you to expect me to do so instead of giving me my right to preserve my own body even after I'm not using it anymore. Neither side of the argument can advance at all there because they can just be met with each other, which has been going on for like half this thread.
[QUOTE=Doomish;39479431]I don't necessarily agree with the whole "why would you decide to opt out of SAVING LIVES ;__; you are so selfish" point. Not because I can refute it, but because it's just a moot point. You could say it's selfish of me to want to keep my organs instead of using them to save lives when I'm dead, and [B]I could say it's selfish of you to expect me to do so instead of giving me my right to preserve my own body even after I'm not using it anymore.[/B] Neither side of the argument can advance at all there because they can just be met with each other, which has been going on for like half this thread.[/QUOTE]Selfishness has to do with putting one's self above others. I doubt many donation advocates advance their position with the intent that they get your organs. So no, you couldn't say they're selfish. Quite the opposite, they're asking you to be selfless.
And what basis do you have to say that your "right to preserve your own body" after you're dead is a valid right, worthy of respect? To me, it seems contrary to the very notion of rights and liberties. Take the right of freedom of speech for instance, or the right to recall your leaders. Both of these rights are essential that society may flourish -- clearly a positive thing. But your right to keep your organs intact brings no such good to society. In fact, it requires that others lose their lives!
edit: You also seem to think that this "right" of yours is more important than the right to live. What is your justification for this?
[QUOTE=McCarthy;34383107]As selfish and short sighted as this sounds, i want to be whole after death. Not parts of me here and there.[/QUOTE]
What if you blew up, having your body totally obliterated in a 10-meter radius?
Not that you would be any good as an organ donor anymore, but still, you don't always get to choose to go out intact.
Anyway, organ donating should not be mandatory. Everyone understands that there are a lot of people in dire need of help, some who cannot even be helped, but everyone still has their rights not to be touched. And who do we thank for that? Those who invented our fundamental, deserved, basic human rights.
[QUOTE=Gekkosan;39484196]And who do we thank for that? Those who invented our fundamental, deserved, basic human rights.[/QUOTE]So in other words, goddidit?
Seriously, you have to justify these things.
Rights cannot simply be invented either, mind you.
I really don't think the government needs to force compassion.
Though I think a mandatory system like this wouldn't be bad
You are automatically registered to donate, if you die while under 16 years of age in america, parents decide. And you get your first chance to opt out when you are getting your drivers license. And at any time you can change whether to opt in or out after you're 16.
[QUOTE=Rhinovirus;34383084]all individuals are to be harvested for their organs in death unless [b]otherwise requested.[/b][/QUOTE]
This sounds like borderline legalized grave robbing, except with organs. Also, unless otherwise requested? Something tells me that'd just get more paperwork involved in the event of a loved one dying, than should be needed.
I think if your religion has no problem with it and your organs are in good condition, then if you die your organs can be taken. You have no use for them when you are dead but there are too many people who are alive and in need of transplants that could use them.
Maybe when you're born your parents are handed a form to opt in for you by the hospital, and on your 16th/18th birthday you could just be posted a form to opt in for yourself?
Your argument for this idea is Morality. Morality is influenced by a persons culture and a part of culture to note is religion. Some people have religious beliefs that require their bodies to be left intact after death. If you just tell them no because of what you believe your being an ignorant idiot. In Michigan you can sign on to the donor list with your drivers license (Making the minimum age to give consent 16, unless a younger person gets a state issued id). You can pick a white list of specific pieces that are okay to harvest, or give consent to all. I am set for everything to be harvest-able so on my death they might bury an empty casket... Given I don't die in some horrific way.
The point is beliefs about deaths are very much a question of culture, because of this if you believe your own beliefs should be mandated on every other person you are ignorant and need to be thinking about issue with yourself and not issue of general population medical services.
How could the chance to save lives in the passing of yours be turned down? It's not like you'll be able to care, even if your beliefs state otherwise, the facts state this. I'm not saying it should be irrefutable, people should be able to say "no I want to be buried with my organs" - but - the standard should be set so that people shouldn't have to ASK to be donated. They should ASK to NOT be donated.
[QUOTE=lifehole;39485540]How could the chance to save lives in the passing of yours be turned down? It's not like you'll be able to care, even if your beliefs state otherwise, the facts state this. I'm not saying it should be irrefutable, people should be able to say "no I want to be buried with my organs" - but - the standard should be set so that people shouldn't have to ASK to be donated. They should ASK to NOT be donated.[/QUOTE]
Because people will be people and you should respect their decisions to not do something they don't want to happen to them. I'm an organ donor because I don't care if they take my body parts for somebody but I don't see how you can decide what's best for somebody else - force-ably doing that to somebody means you're just being disrespectful.
I chose to be a donor when I got my restricted driving license, but when I go for my full license I think I'll be removing my donor status.
I'm not particularly religious; my family never has been. I'm agnostic if anything, but I don't believe in any gods. On a very personal level it just feels 'right' to me to be buried as a whole. If there was somebody I knew well and cared about lots, then I'd be happy to give them an organ. But otherwise it's all staying with me.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;39486101]On a very personal level it just feels 'right' to me to be buried as a whole[/QUOTE]
I'd feel better knowing that after I die I could save people's lives
[QUOTE=Josef Stalin;39484046]Selfishness has to do with putting one's self above others. I doubt many donation advocates advance their position with the intent that they get your organs. So no, you couldn't say they're selfish. Quite the opposite, they're asking you to be selfless.
And what basis do you have to say that your "right to preserve your own body" after you're dead is a valid right, worthy of respect? To me, it seems contrary to the very notion of rights and liberties. Take the right of freedom of speech for instance, or the right to recall your leaders. Both of these rights are essential that society may flourish -- clearly a positive thing. But your right to keep your organs intact brings no such good to society. In fact, it requires that others lose their lives!
edit: You also seem to think that this "right" of yours is more important than the right to live. What is your justification for this?[/QUOTE]
Why does emphasis on the state flourishing as you put it exceed that of personal wishes?
I am not abject to the idea of others donating their organs but I do not wish to donate mine. I do not lobby for laws against organ donation and likewise I shouldn't be forced to go out of my way to prevent mine from being donated against my will.
Call me selfish but when I die anything I ever felt stops existing, if someone would benefit from my body parts is of no concern to me then as I have ceased having thoughts. In the same way that an organ donor derives some satisfaction from knowing their body will go on to help others I too gain some peace knowing that when I kick the bucket I won't be cut up and placed inside other people.
Allowing the state to make decisions like this is wrong. After all if dead people don't need their organs whats to stop mandatory donation of a paraplegics legs or use of an abortion/miscarriage for some medical means I mean none of them are used.
I don't know, I read an article a while ago that said almost all organ donations come from brain-dead people, since that's pretty much the only way to get them while they're fresh enough. It also said that the body reacts to it the same as if they were operating without anesthetic which kind of freaks me out a little. I think opt-in is fine. People who want to save lives would probably even go a little out of the way to sign up, and as it is, all you have to do is say yes when they ask while getting your driver's license.
[QUOTE=SamPerson123;39486853]I don't know, I read an article a while ago that said almost all organ donations come from brain-dead people, since that's pretty much the only way to get them while they're fresh enough. It also said that the body reacts to it the same as if they were operating without anesthetic which kind of freaks me out a little. I think opt-in is fine. People who want to save lives would probably even go a little out of the way to sign up, and as it is, all you have to do is say yes when they ask while getting your driver's license.[/QUOTE]
They can use your body for scientific research as well for students etc so we can progress with treatments etc.
[QUOTE=Titann;39486776]Why does emphasis on the state flourishing as you put it exceed that of personal wishes?
I am not abject to the idea of others donating their organs but I do not wish to donate mine. I do not lobby for laws against organ donation and likewise I shouldn't be forced to go out of my way to prevent mine from being donated against my will.
Call me selfish but when I die anything I ever felt stops existing, if someone would benefit from my body parts is of no concern to me then as I have ceased having thoughts. In the same way that an organ donor derives some satisfaction from knowing their body will go on to help others I too gain some peace knowing that when I kick the bucket I won't be cut up and placed inside other people.
Allowing the state to make decisions like this is wrong. After all if dead people don't need their organs whats to stop mandatory donation of a paraplegics legs or use of an abortion/miscarriage for some medical means I mean none of them are used.[/QUOTE]
But the state isn't making this decision for you. An opt-out system doesn't force anyone into anything they aren't comfortable with and would go a long way towards fighting the apathy that made you refuse to be an organ donor yourself. The excuse people seem to use most often has nothing to do with religion or personal freedom so much as the idea itself making them uncomfortable, and that's what needs to change.
Personally, I wouldn't feel very confortable knowing that when I die, a bunch of people are gonna gut me open and empty me out. Just for starters, it would be weird as hell knowing that you, I or anyone else you see are most likely gonna have their outsides removed after they die. Also wouldn't find it a good feeling when people know you are a donor and they are in needs of...organs...
(you can call that being paranoid all you want)
Also, aside from all the religious/cultural reasons people might have, I think it would also condone reckless behavior to one's body, thinking "oh I can drink as much as I want, whenever some guy dies, I'll have his liver." Since almost everyone would be a donor, people could start thinking "oh I'll just get a new one".
It just sounds like an awful idea altogether, where you could be considered just a source of organs.
Whos to say people wouldn't start some sort of crime with that aswell? I mean, there already exists organ smuggling, this would make it even easier.
[QUOTE=dass;39487425]Personally, I wouldn't feel very confortable knowing that when I die, a bunch of people are gonna gut me open and empty me out. Just for starters, it would be weird as hell knowing that you, I or anyone else you see are most likely gonna have their outsides removed after they die. Also wouldn't find it a good feeling when people know you are a donor and they are in needs of...organs...
(you can call that being paranoid all you want)
Also, aside from all the religious/cultural reasons people might have, I think it would also condone reckless behavior to one's body, thinking "oh I can drink as much as I want, whenever some guy dies, I'll have his liver." Since almost everyone would be a donor, people could start thinking "oh I'll just get a new one".
It just sounds like an awful idea altogether, where you could be considered just a source of organs.
Whos to say people wouldn't start some sort of crime with that aswell? I mean, there already exists organ smuggling, this would make it even easier.[/QUOTE]
If anything it would reduce the crime now that it is legal, the only thing we'd have to worry about is people doing it to people that didn't want it to happen to them. But with the new abundance of organs, that probably wouldn't happen.
People aren't going to just destroy their body. Because there is a lot more to replacing an organ than just sticking a new one in. Also, what you're explaining wouldn't be that bad. An abundance of replacement organs would save a lot of lives, a lot more so than the inefficiency caused by recklessness.
I'm saying it should be a choice, but it should be a choice that every decides on and has to make once they turn a certain age. It should be a choice everyone is faced with, because organ donation has the power to save lives, but not everyone knows or cares about it on death.
[QUOTE=Titann;39486776]Why does emphasis on the state flourishing as you put it exceed that of personal wishes?[/QUOTE]How do your personal wishes have more ethical importance than the right of another to live? This is a debate. You can't just say mandatory organ donation is bad because it goes against your wishes, you also have to explain why your wishes are worthy of being respected.
[QUOTE=Titann;39486776]I am not abject to the idea of others donating their organs but I do not wish to donate mine. I do not lobby for laws against organ donation and likewise I shouldn't be forced to go out of my way to prevent mine from being donated against my will.[/QUOTE]This is flawed, for it assumes both sides of the argument have some equal inherent validity, and it assumes that you should be able to prevent your organs from being used.
Let's take your method of argument to its logical end:
[I]I don't lobby for laws against unsegregated bathrooms, and likewise I shouldn't be forced to go out of my way to not let blacks into my bathroom.[/I]
Your reasoning still works no matter how ridiculous the notion being argued. Thus, clearly, your reasoning is flawed. Try justifying your argument in a more reasonable way.
[QUOTE=Titann;39486776]Call me selfish but when I die anything I ever felt stops existing, if someone would benefit from my body parts is of no concern to me then as I have ceased having thoughts. In the same way that an organ donor derives some satisfaction from knowing their body will go on to help others I too gain some peace knowing that when I kick the bucket I won't be cut up and placed inside other people.[/QUOTE]The emotional comfort found by people that chose to donate their organs is irrelevant, as is the comfort you find in denying ill or injured people the chance to live. If I chose to donate my organs after my death, this has a definite, certain and measurable benefit to anyone who receives my organs. Any peace I may find in this is irrelevant in argument. Your side, how has a measurable and certain negative impact -- the loss of life that could've been prevented. Once again, emotion has nothing to do with it. Argument on the basis of emotion isn't valid.
[QUOTE=Titann;39486776]Allowing the state to make decisions like this is wrong.[/QUOTE]I understand anti-authoritarianism is rather fashionable these days, but can you justify your claim? Why is it wrong? If anything, this is the exact sort of descision best put in the hands of the state, for the state isn't concerned with the petty if's and's and but's that characterize topics such as these. Mind you I'm not justifying the existence of the state, but the statist argument makes for a good refutation of yours.
[QUOTE=Titann;39486776]After all if dead people don't need their organs whats to stop mandatory donation of a paraplegics legs or use of an abortion/miscarriage for some medical means I mean none of them are used.[/QUOTE]Weather or not we should, for instance, use aborted fetuses for stem cell research (...oh right) or chop off the limbs of the cripple next door isn't what we're arguing. Keep on topic, please.
[url]http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html[/url]
[QUOTE=lifehole;39487512]If anything it would reduce the crime now that it is legal, the only thing we'd have to worry about is people doing it to people that didn't want it to happen to them. But with the new abundance of them, that probably wouldn't happen.
People aren't going to just destroy there body because there is a lot more to replacing an organ than just sticking a new one in. Also, what you're explaining wouldn't be that bad. An abundance of replacement organs would save a lot of lives, a lot more so than the inefficiency caused by recklessness.
I'm saying it should be a choice, but it should be a choice that every decides on and has to make once they turn a certain age. But it should be a choice everyone is faced with, because organ donation has the power to save lives, but not everyone knows or cares about it on death.[/QUOTE]
They would. Where there is abundance, there is waste. If you break your phone, you get a new one right away.
Not saying a phone is the same as an organ, but since there would be abundance, its not like it would be a problem to get one.
Exactly, nobody cares about it after death, so why should they give their organs instead of remaining a whole to save some guy who they never saw in their life?
It's best to leave it as it is. A choice. Mandatory just sounds like an organ donor farm.
[QUOTE=dass;39487623]ThExactly, nobody cares about it after death, so why should they give their organs instead of remaining a whole to save some guy who they never saw in their life?[/QUOTE]Uhh... to save the life of another?
[QUOTE=dass;39487623]It's best to leave it as it is. A choice. Mandatory just sounds like an organ donor farm.[/QUOTE]Organ donor farms? "Sounds like" isn't a valid argument anyway. It's just fear-mongering.
edit: Also the "nobody cares after death" argument is flawed for the purposes of this debate, because, as you point out, it can be used with equal apparent validity for either side.
[QUOTE=Josef Stalin;39484221]So in other words, goddidit?
Seriously, you have to justify these things.
Rights cannot simply be invented either, mind you.[/QUOTE]
No I know, and when I say deserved human rights I was a bit sarcastic there too.
And no goddefinitelydidnotdoit, I don't know where you're coming from with that. God is just as invented by man as the laws and rights we were debating.
[editline]6th February 2013[/editline]
Besides, when scientists can synthetically create new organs and do it well..
[QUOTE=Josef Stalin;39487668]Uhh... to save the life of another? [/QUOTE]
There is no guarantee that my organs will ever get used or that they will be healthy enough because I drank one too many cans of soda or didn't run a 5k every week, for one. The problem with the "but you'll be saving lives!!" thing is that I may very well [I]not[/I] save any lives. Someone could get one of my organs and then reject it once it's inside them and die, and it'd be posthumously my fault by your logic because it's parts of my corpse and I could've opted out, but I didn't. There's a ton of scenarios that poke holes in that argument that render it moot.
Because it's not like just any old organ will work. The transplant has to be compatible with the person and for all I know, my stuff will just get tossed in a freezer somewhere and never used, meanwhile my family doesn't get any peace of mind because all of my parts are scattered around everywhere. "At least he's being put to good use" isn't very much consolation to the people grieving.
[QUOTE=Doomish;39490177]There is no guarantee that my organs will ever get used or that they will be healthy enough because I drank one too many cans of soda or didn't run a 5k every week, for one. The problem with the "but you'll be saving lives!!" thing is that I may very well [I]not[/I] save any lives. [/QUOTE]Mandatory organ donation damn well would save lives. Of course it's not going to be one for one per donor, I don't know why you think I'm saying it would be.
[QUOTE=Doomish;39490177]Someone could get one of my organs and then reject it once it's inside them and die, [B]and it'd be posthumously my fault by your logic because it's parts of my corpse and I could've opted out, but I didn't.[/B] There's a ton of scenarios that poke holes in that argument that render it moot.[/QUOTE]Where did I use this sort of logic? Quote?
[QUOTE=Doomish;39490177]Because it's not like just any old organ will work. The transplant has to be compatible with the person and for all I know, my stuff will just get tossed in a freezer somewhere and never used, meanwhile my family doesn't get any peace of mind because all of my parts are scattered around everywhere. "At least he's being put to good use" isn't very much consolation to the people grieving.[/QUOTE]Cut the emotional appeals, please.
[QUOTE=Doomish;39490177]"At least he's being put to good use" isn't very much consolation to the people grieving.[/QUOTE]
Unless your family intend on keeping your kidneys on display to remember you by it gives them more consolation than the alternative. And even though there's not guarantee that your organs will ultimately save lives, if you refuse to donate then it's certain that they won't.
Couldn't it be argued that having a mandatory organ donation program would increase the risk of people being murdered for their organs?
[QUOTE=Nat114;39490820]Couldn't it be argued that having a mandatory organ donation program would increase the risk of people being murdered for their organs?[/QUOTE]How? Murder is illegal either way, so I don't see why it would happen any more than it happens now (black market organs).
[QUOTE=Nat114;39490820]Couldn't it be argued that having a mandatory organ donation program would increase the risk of people being murdered for their organs?[/QUOTE]
By making legal organs for transplant more readily available? I don't see how.
[QUOTE=MazerRackham;39490875]By making legal organs for transplant more readily available? I don't see how.[/QUOTE]I think his argument is "well I might be a murder, but the person's already dead, might as well take the organs". Needless to say this is pretty unrealistic, and could be prevented easily as well, similar to how life insurance companies don't pay out on suicide.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
