I'm not really big on philosophy, but would this be considered as some existentialist type shit?
Yeah, but people are allowed to forgo whatever they want if they feel it impedes on their religious or moral beliefs, although existentialism tends to be more atheistic in value -- and more towards inner recognition. But I only took Philosophy 101 so take it with a grain of salt.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited May 2008
This debate has turned into, "Atheism is the only ruleset which we should follow, because it imposes the least cost to morals and lives." (Haw haw, strawman)
I'm glad you're laughing at how dumb your own strawman is, it saves me having to point out the gigantic fallacy you just made for you. But just in case, the argument is that saving more lives potentially is worth more than not doing so. Some idiot put "atheism" in there somewhere, I'm not sure how as I prefer to go along with the whole "not killing people thing" more, but whatever.
But I digress, still, prove to me the current system isn't working, and that a new opt-out system will solve the situation. You're going to get a whole slew of organs that are not transplantable, impede on personal belief systems, and possibly cause a huge fucking riot.
And also note that although you believe that beliefs exist in a vacuum, you believe that enough Christians will be outraged by having the right to refuse to donate their organs that they will riot hugely. This is all terribly consistent, I'm sure.
So, I only read the first two and last two pages, and I've already seen several variations on this.
So what happens if/when the paperwork gets fucked up, and since it's assumed that you're a donor unless otherwise stated they harvest your organs...even though you opted out. Because as we all know, such things never happen.
Personally I'd rather they have to show that I've opted-in rather than my family needing to show I've opted-out.
As I've read in the thread, family members can override the opt-in without having to show any paper-work, unless you go the extra steps of filing a legally-binding form.
No one is a worse person because of their beliefs. Ever.
(EDIT: I'm talking a serious moral/religious belief, not some wackadoody serial killer who has a belief that they can murder people, because I know someone will try that at some point)
Hahahahahahaha what?
Racism, sexism, homophobia, fascism, egoism. These are serious moral beliefs, holding them makes you a worse person.
They're still their beliefs, are you belittling them because you don't agree? As long as they're no encroaching on you, why do you care?
That shit is not only stupid, but it's also off-topic (like the crap about religion and smug atheists), so let's drop it.
But I digress, still, prove to me the current system isn't working, and that a new opt-out system will solve the situation. You're going to get a whole slew of organs that are not transplantable, impede on personal belief systems, and possibly cause a huge fucking riot. Yes, clearly the better of the two systems.
Just because a system isn't broken doesn't mean it can't be improved, you're still impeding on my belief to donate organs, and you have no proof whatsoever that any of what you said will happen whereas the absolute worst that can happen with an opt out system is that donation rates stay the same.
As I see it, there are three groups. Those who feel strongly about donating and will not be affected by this law, those who feel strongly about not donating and will not be affected by this law, and those who don't give a shit and will be affected by this law. To oppose this law because the third group has strong objections to it makes no sense, because they clearly don't. If they did, they'd opt out.
One of the last groups that was raised was those who have strong objections, and would forget to opt-out, and their families' trauma. But families can override the wishes of the opt-out system in that case, so that's not legitimate concern. And we're down to those who oppose the system strongly, will forget to opt-out, and have no families. And with that, I'd don't see a big enough potential harm to outweigh the gain of saving people's lives.
I was thinking about this the other day. I thought about everyone for whom I could legitimately be considered "next of kin", realised that I have never discussed the issue of organ donation with any of them, but that I would give consent for their organs to be harvested should the situation ever arise where the decision rested with me.
In the United Kingdom, next of kin are never, ever asked for consent to harvest organs. Ever. We operate on an opt-in system, and if a person has chosen to be a donor, nobody, not even parents, can get in the way. Under our system, the only person with the right to deny others your organs is yourself.
Of course, the NHS recommends that one tells one's friends and family once on the donor register, to avoid flooding the wards with sweet, delicious, anti-organ donation tears.
Say what? That's like the opposite of how it works here - family members can say no, and it is a big problem.
Yes, even where someone has placed their name on the Organ Donor Register, doctors must get their relatives' permission before removing their organs. Chris Rudge, the director of UK Transplant, said that lack of family consent meant four out of 10 organs considered suitable for transplant were not being used.
So what happens if/when the paperwork gets fucked up, and since it's assumed that you're a donor unless otherwise stated they harvest your organs...even though you opted out. Because as we all know, such things never happen.
What happens if the paperwork gets mussed up and it's not known I opted in?
Someone dies. I'm sorry but that's more important than causing your family angst.
Again, I don't consider people dying of disease to be some horrible wrong. That's just kind of what happens...we're mortal, after all. Personally I am an organ donor, but I'm just not comfortable with assuming that everybody would (or rather, will) donate their organs unless they've said otherwise.
So, I only read the first two and last two pages, and I've already seen several variations on this.
So what happens if/when the paperwork gets fucked up, and since it's assumed that you're a donor unless otherwise stated they harvest your organs...even though you opted out. Because as we all know, such things never happen.
Personally I'd rather they have to show that I've opted-in rather than my family needing to show I've opted-out.
As I've read in the thread, family members can override the opt-in without having to show any paper-work, unless you go the extra steps of filing a legally-binding form.
I don't see why this can't be fixed without moving to an opt-out program. Hell, you could just make the form at the DMV legally binding. Problem solved.
You could also require that somebody make an active decision on that form...make non-donors actually check a "no" box. I fail to see how getting a positive decision from everybody is inferior to simply assuming (one way or the other), especially since even allowing an opt-out implies that you're respecting the idea that some may not be willing to donate.
Even though your relatives cannot overrule your choice, please make sure they are aware of your wishes.
I apologise for the next one, as I can't provide a link to it. A campaign booklet from the NHS Organ Donor Register, entitled "You've got what it takes to save a life" and printed earlier this year, reads:
We know that in most cases families will agree to donation if they knew that was their loved one's wish. If the family, or those closest to the person who has died, object to the donation when the person who has died has given their explicit permission, either by telling relatives, close friends or clinical staff, or by carrying a donor card or registering their wishes on the NHS Organ Donor Register, healthcare professionals will discuss the matter sensitively with them. They will be encouraged to accept the dead person's wishes and it will be made clear that they do not have the legal right to veto or overrule those wishes.
Families do not have a legal right to veto organ donation in the UK.
So what happens if/when the paperwork gets fucked up, and since it's assumed that you're a donor unless otherwise stated they harvest your organs...even though you opted out. Because as we all know, such things never happen.
What happens if the paperwork gets mussed up and it's not known I opted in?
Someone dies. I'm sorry but that's more important than causing your family angst.
Again, I don't consider people dying of disease to be some horrible wrong. That's just kind of what happens...we're mortal, after all. Personally I am an organ donor, but I'm just not comfortable with assuming that everybody would (or rather, will) donate their organs unless they've said otherwise.
That's rather callous. Saying people are dying of disease anyway is a terrible reason to not potentially save any of them. And I'm just as comfortable assuming that everyone who would want to opt out would, with the absolute worst case scenario in that case being "Noes, you desecrated the body!" where as, again, the worst case scenario with opt in is death.
Even though your relatives cannot overrule your choice, please make sure they are aware of your wishes.
I apologise for the next one, as I can't provide a link to it. A campaign booklet from the NHS Organ Donor Register, entitled "You've got what it takes to save a life" and printed earlier this year, reads:
We know that in most cases families will agree to donation if they knew that was their loved one's wish. If the family, or those closest to the person who has died, object to the donation when the person who has died has given their explicit permission, either by telling relatives, close friends or clinical staff, or by carrying a donor card or registering their wishes on the NHS Organ Donor Register, healthcare professionals will discuss the matter sensitively with them. They will be encouraged to accept the dead person's wishes and it will be made clear that they do not have the legal right to veto or overrule those wishes.
Families do not have a legal right to veto organ donation in the UK.
I'd be surprised if they can't get around that by way of lawyering up, though.
Again, I don't consider people dying of disease to be some horrible wrong. That's just kind of what happens...we're mortal, after all. Personally I am an organ donor, but I'm just not comfortable with assuming that everybody would (or rather, will) donate their organs unless they've said otherwise.
That's rather callous. Saying people are dying of disease anyway is a terrible reason to not potentially save any of them. And I'm just as comfortable assuming that everyone who would want to opt out would, with the absolute worst case scenario in that case being "Noes, you desecrated the body!" where as, again, the worst case scenario with opt in is death.
I'm still waiting for somebody to explain why my idea wouldn't increase the pool of organs just as dramatically (thus saving just as many lives), while at the same time not presuming everybody as a donor.
My idea, again, being to require a positive and legally binding answer from everybody at some convenient "collection" point...hospital (on first visit), DMV, tax forms, wherever. In the US, you could require a positive yes/no answer (instead of a check for yes or else assume no, as it generally is now) on the question, and make the form legally binding (thus allowing you to tell the family members to piss off).
- People are likely to change their minds from when they broke their wrist skateboarding at age 19 and went to the hospital to when they wound up in a car crash at age 37. 'BOY I SURE BETTER TICK THE OTHER BOX NEXT TIME I FILL OUT MY INCOME TAX-- HEY IS THAT A TREE OH GOD *SQUISH*'
- people might not want to spend the time thinking about what happens to them after they die (i mean, shit, tax forms are depressing enough) and may tick no to avoid the After I Die conversation with mom/wife/kids/whatever; even though, when they really think about it, they would have probably ticked yes.
- Hey all these people didn't tick yes OR no -- so we assume...? Anddddd we're back at square one.
Hardly watertight counter arguments, and I actually sort of agree with your idea as probably being the fairest. I think I'm pro opt-out, however, because it places the onus on people with strong beliefs which potentially prevent another person from living a longer, better life, to perform an action which explicitly makes them confront the fact, and make peace with the fact, that they are totally selfish assholes.
I think there should be a push for organ donating consent the same way there are blood drives where all the "cool" people are encouraged to donate blood. It should be OPT IN, and you should be able to stipulate that your family not be able to complain or overrule your wishes, but it should be an "extra" you choose.
Having signed the OPT IN & Family can't overrule options could carry a small but tangible benifit (+x pts in the formula to determine if you receive an organ should you need one?) I Donate blood on the principle that one day I may need a blood transfusion, everyone should do their part, especially if they expect to reap the rewards.
Not all people are capable of making the OPT OUT decision if you went that rout. Is it fair to have mentally handicapped people automatically opted in to something they don't understand regardless of their beliefs?
- People are likely to change their minds from when they broke their wrist skateboarding at age 19 and went to the hospital to when they wound up in a car crash at age 37. 'BOY I SURE BETTER TICK THE OTHER BOX NEXT TIME I FILL OUT MY INCOME TAX-- HEY IS THAT A TREE OH GOD *SQUISH*'
I fail to see how this is worse that never having them tick the box in the first place and just assuming "yes." At least at some point they made the positive decision.
- people might not want to spend the time thinking about what happens to them after they die (i mean, shit, tax forms are depressing enough) and may tick no to avoid the After I Die conversation with mom/wife/kids/whatever; even though, when they really think about it, they would have probably ticked yes.
These people are idiots. But hey, it's their choice to be idiots.
- Hey all these people didn't tick yes OR no -- so we assume...? Anddddd we're back at square one.
A non-issue. If it's a DMV form, you simply don't give them their license until they choose a box. If it's a tax return, you kick it back to them as invalid (as you would for any other filing error). Keep in mind that in all these cases you're attaching the question to a form/process that the person wants/needs to get done...so you simply don't allow them to avoid the question.
Hardly watertight counter arguments, and I actually sort of agree with your idea as probably being the fairest. I think I'm pro opt-out, however, because it places the onus on people with strong beliefs which potentially prevent another person from living a longer, better life, to perform an action which explicitly makes them confront the fact, and make peace with the fact, that they are totally selfish assholes.
Really only one of them holds any weight at all (the whole "avoiding the converation" argument). And I think forcing a positive decision (rather than the current "check box for yes, do nothing for no") really accomplishes the same as far as making them confront the fact.
Then again, here is where I'm confronted with my tendency to be (on the scale of this forum, not general society) the crotchety conservative. You put it as me "potentially preventing another person from living a longer, better life"....but as far as I'm concerned it's their disease doing that. I'm simply failing to help cure them. I'm not preventing them from living a longer, better life any more than I'm preventing a bum from living a longer life by not giving him ten bucks. I don't need that ten bucks by any stretch of the imagination....I'll just waste it on a videogame or eating out. But it's mine to give...I'm not keeping it from him. Just like my organs.
Yes, even when I'm dead. As with any other property, I'm free to have done with it what I choose when I die. I can choose to give my Xbox to my wife, to my kids, to my buddy from college...I can also, in my will, make it clear that I'd rather have it crushed then thrown in the garbage. I can choose to give my organs to somebody to (potentially) help them live a longer, better life...or I can have them planted in the ground or burned and placed in a spiffy urn. My choice.
Of course, part of it may also be because I don't buy the whole "but they'd dead, so it doesn't matter" argument. I'm one of those unenlightened people who believes in unicorns and such, so I think that what you do to somebody's body after death may actually matter. Enough so that you should go taking it apart and handing out the pieces unless they've indicated that they're actually okay with that. But, like I said, I think we need to set it up so that everybody is basically forced to make that decision, and that it's legally binding (which means once you've decided your family has more say). If society as a whole is actually so supportive of donation as to justify an opt-out system, this should achieve the same effect.
My idea, again, being to require a positive and legally binding answer from everybody at some convenient "collection" point...hospital (on first visit), DMV, tax forms, wherever. In the US, you could require a positive yes/no answer (instead of a check for yes or else assume no, as it generally is now) on the question, and make the form legally binding (thus allowing you to tell the family members to piss off).
This is pretty close to what already exists. In Canada (if memory serves me) I think I was asked to fill out a yes/no to organ donation when I get my provincial medical card, which I need if I want to be covered for doctor/hospital visits.
I think this kind of OPT-IN is preferable to some sort of OPT OUT method where some people (mentally handicapped for example) may have their organs harvested regardless of their beliefs because they failed to opt out.
Obviously you can't pay cash for these types things, but I don't see why a small incentive of some sort to be a registered organ donor (+small chance to receive an organ if I ever need it?) can't be used to overcome general apathy.
This debate has turned into, "Atheism is the only ruleset which we should follow, because it imposes the least cost to morals and lives." (Haw haw, strawman)
You admit yourself that it's a strawman, but I'm curious as to why you're deriding it when we're just talking about a secular approach to law? That's the correct choice.
Since when did lack of religiosity and squeamishness about organ transplantery track even close to 100%? You're full of wrong here. If you want to hate on 'Atheists'* for not being sentimental enough for you, start a thread so we can call you an idiot in an on-topic fashion.
* I get the feeling from your usage that you're one of those people who also uses the term 'evilutionist'. If you are, can you let me know so I can go do something less futile?
Lack of sentimentality? Hell, the sad fact is that the reason a donor shortage is becoming more of a problem is because ever more people are leading terrible lifestyles and their choices are getting them into circumstances that require replacement of squishy bits. If you want lack of sentimentality, then solve the issue by cutting off anyone whose lifestyle may have contributed to their needing a transplant - Drink, diet, smoking, drugs - if you've done them or abused them, you're out. Voila, the genuine needy suddenly have WAY less competition.
Want to get colder again. Put an end to further road safety campaigns and improvements. It's one of the biggest contributing factors to organ donation which means that as lives are saved, lives are lost. That idea may be a little more popular given the, shall we say, 'inconsistent' sentiment shown towards saving lives.
If Atheist views are to be used as a be all justification, then yeah it's gonna be picked up on. Sorry you don't like it being picked up on, but when it's the source of one side of an argument it is going to come up.
'evilutionist' - I've not heard the term before. Then again, I'm not bashing away at religions so clearly i must be anti-science and deeply religious. You can't possibly go against some good old belief bashing without being religous yourself. Obviously.
If you refuse to sign up to be an organ donor, then yes, your beliefs are worse and you're a worse person because of it.
Since when did it stop being okay to make value judgments? If you think that the choice not to donate isn't actually morally bankrupt, then defend that position. Don't try to shut down discussion by shouting that you're being oppressed.
Let's not go round the morally bankrupt for not donating again, shall we? It's a fruitless argumentative line which falls apart when compared with any of a thousand simpler and more effective things a person could do which would save WAAAAY more lives, but which are ignored for far more petty and selfish reasons.
Let's compare.
A person choses to donate $2 a week and in the space of a lifetime contibutes to the saving dozens of lives. Said person chooses not to be a donor because of their beliefs which happened to inspire them to make the weekly contribution.
Another person buys a few cans of coke a week rather than donate $2 but doesn't opt-out and contributes to saving a life through inaction and indifference.
Value judgement - the guy who donated organs did nothing, made no effort to care and instead relied on someone else to utilize his inaction. The first guy's gesture required he make a choice and be proactive in following it through. The second guy required someone to assume good intentions for him.
Clearly though, the first guy is a bastard because his beliefs prevented him from donating.
I'm on the register and give money to charity - value judgement: I'm Righteous.
I could have given more and have restrictions on what they can take - value judgement: I'm morally corrupt.
It's also interesting that you use loaded language like "mutilated" when describing surgical procedures.
I won't patronize you by posting the definition, nevertheless the language usage is correct and very accurate. I use it, because it's honest and doesn't skirt around the subject or attempt to decieve or hide the actual process or meaning, as terms like "assumed consent" do.
"Extract" is mechanical and non-descript. "Harvest" side-steps the actual procedure and effect. "Sugically relieved" - well, I made that up in the process of trying to find fluffy terms for cutting up a body, cracking open the chest cavity, cutting away internal tissue, removing organs and other key parts and permanently disfiguring what was a person.
Plus, given a transplant co-ordinator found it an honest enough term to address and use when they convinced me to register, then I see no problem in it's use.
Then again, terms like meat and rotting carcass are being to describe people's remains in the face of "sentiment" and "supersticion" blamed for an attachment to one's own body or that of a loved one. Strikes me as a little dubious that approriate descriptive language would only come up now..
Ah, who needs to keep trying to do that when the counter argument has managed to miss even the most basic of key factors influencing organ donation and seems trapped on stage 1: "olol - save lives" conjecture.
Re: Edit
You're right. Organ extraction from a dead body is a clean, non-invasive, non-disfiguring procedure that in no way results in irreparable damage or significant physical alteration. The Appendix, kidneys and other small organs are removed through time-consuming keyhole surgery. The spiritual essense of the eyes is extracted and formed into corneas while major organs like the lungs and heart are teased through the persons nose thereby avoiding the otherwise rigid and obstructive bonestructure making up their chest. Then special necro-heal gel is applied to completely undo the few minor incisions that were needed.
Ah, who needs to keep trying to do that when the counter argument has managed to miss even the most basic of key factors influencing organ donation and seems trapped on stage 1: "olol - save lives" conjecture.
Because you haven't explained why the default option should be respecting someone's belief in their religion over someone's belief in saving lives. Note the important noun option.
Quid on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Let's not go round the morally bankrupt for not donating again, shall we? It's a fruitless argumentative line which falls apart when compared with any of a thousand simpler and more effective things a person could do which would save WAAAAY more lives, but which are ignored for far more petty and selfish reasons.
Let's compare.
A person choses to donate $2 a week and in the space of a lifetime contibutes to the saving dozens of lives. Said person chooses not to be a donor because of their beliefs which happened to inspire them to make the weekly contribution.
Another person buys a few cans of coke a week rather than donate $2 but doesn't opt-out and contributes to saving a life through inaction and indifference.
Value judgement - the guy who donated organs did nothing, made no effort to care and instead relied on someone else to utilize his inaction. The first guy's gesture required he make a choice and be proactive in following it through. The second guy required someone to assume good intentions for him.
Clearly though, the first guy is a bastard because his beliefs prevented him from donating.
I'm on the register and give money to charity - value judgement: I'm Righteous.
I could have given more and have restrictions on what they can take - value judgement: I'm morally corrupt.
Guess how I feel about giving to charity.
If you don't give to charity then your beliefs are worse and you're a worse person because of it.
Let's not go round the morally bankrupt for not donating again, shall we? It's a fruitless argumentative line which falls apart when compared with any of a thousand simpler and more effective things a person could do which would save WAAAAY more lives, but which are ignored for far more petty and selfish reasons.
Let's compare.
A person choses to donate $2 a week and in the space of a lifetime contibutes to the saving dozens of lives. Said person chooses not to be a donor because of their beliefs which happened to inspire them to make the weekly contribution.
Another person buys a few cans of coke a week rather than donate $2 but doesn't opt-out and contributes to saving a life through inaction and indifference.
$2 a week is $104 a year. If you start when you're born and live to be 100, that's a total of $10,400. What did that guy from the last thread place the cost of a single kidney at, about four times that?
So saving peoples lives isn't actually important? Because a mechanism that promotes saving peoples lives is not inherently bad to me by any stretch. Maybe you can explain why it's bad, bearing in mind "olol invisible X says otherwise" is not a convincing argument.
You're right. Organ extraction from a dead body is a clean, non-invasive, non-disfiguring procedure that in no way results in irreparable damage or significant physical alteration. The Appendix, kidneys and other small organs are removed through time-consuming keyhole surgery.
Kidneys are not removed through keyhole surgery and the appendix is only removed with keyhole surgery if it isn't hugely inflamed. If it is very inflamed, it needs to be removed through more invasive, typical surgery. Please know what you are talking about before you open your mouth and make yourself look more stupid. Just as a hint: If the appendix is badly inflamed and you cut it up using keyhole surgery to remove it, you release a whole load of bacteria directly into the patients bloodstream. Can you tell me what happens when you release a huge horde of bacteria into someones bloodstream?
Incidentally, keyhole surgery when applied to kidneys is usually used to remove tumours, not the organ itself. In any event, you mustn't think much of my mother though, who required open heart surgery (cracking open the sternum in fact) three times. She's so badly mutilated, we can't even look at her. Poor mom and the fact she required a terrible surgical procedure that mutilated her for life. You'd almost think people would be smart enough not to have diseases that needed major surgery or transplants to begin with. Clearly, dead people need to retain all their organs and good looks to be buried 6ft under and become worm food. When I die, I want to die intact and looking my best: fuck living people. Selfish assholes, still being alive and in pain and all that.
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited May 2008
I love the hot air being thrown around here:
"But there are other ways like making people die more for being stupid lolol"
Yeah, because infringing on the rights of a living person is TOTALLY the same as a dead hunk of worm food.
"But what about they're beliefs???"
Did we not go over this as an option in OPT-OUT???
"But it's my property like an XBox"
Yeah, except almost no people will be willing their organs to loved ones, because that would be silly. So not the same.
Really I hope you guys are playing devil's advocate just for fun because the idea that more people donating organs = more lives saved is really not that hard at all.
"Why not just make people choose before getting their license/file their taxes/goes to the doctor????"
Nice idea, but people's default position on anything is 'no' because of massive lack of attention span. Maybe in a few years when donating organs is the vast norm we could move to such a system but right now we need results, not wishy-washy half-assed attempts.
Rule 34c: if it exists, someone will bitch about it.
Hmm. As a sufferer of a life-long, so-far incurable disease, I probably see more benefits in getting the otherwise wasted pancreas of someone who 'doesn't care' and doesn't opt-out.
Or, yes, fuck it, even the lazy religious fuck who through some miracle of ignorance or inaction didn't realise he could opt-out. He didn't need it anymore.
Is removing organs any more vile than what's done to a body to enable an open casket funeral?
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited May 2008
Yeah it's funny we're talking about 'desecration' of a corpse when the only fate of the died is either being burned to ashes or the kind of artificial chemical treatment, fluid extraction, and reconstruction that is more like making a Real Doll than a person.
I guess there's also giving your body to medical research but I doubt people who wouldn't want to donate organs would be up for that anyway.
The problem with giving your body to medical research is that it generally rules out organ donation.
I wasn't making any implication otherwise, just that if people find organ donation too 'icky' then they probably aren't going to find being a cadaver much better.
$2 a week is $104 a year. If you start when you're born and live to be 100, that's a total of $10,400. What did that guy from the last thread place the cost of a single kidney at, about four times that?
Yep, and that one kidney saves one life, whereas that $10400 saves considerably more lives. Though, apparently the life of the one person needing the kidney is more important than the dozens saved via other means. There's a serious inconsistency the the valuation of life and the moralization used to justify shitting all over one set of beliefs in favor of another which is already represented.
So saving peoples lives isn't actually important? Because a mechanism that promotes saving peoples lives is not inherently bad to me by any stretch. Maybe you can explain why it's bad, bearing in mind "olol invisible X says otherwise" is not a convincing argument.
Let's lose the conjecture for a moment shall we? There is a prevailing belief that changing to an opt-out system somehow magically improves donor rates and thus saves lives. Now, this requires that we disregard (it's almost tradiction at this point) the fact act that the US - with it's opt-in with required request - has a higher donor rate than numerous countries which have a opt-out without required request, and the fact that a country with one of the highest donor rates, freely admits that it cannot be attributed to the opt-out system and was down to tackling issues that actually influence saving lives and increasing said rate.
It also requires that we ignore the wellbeing and impact upon any of those pesky grieving people because sentiment, belief and emotion is stupid, they're alive and not in need of new squishies. Likewise, we must ignore the likelyhood that some of those backward, superstitious, sentimental sub-humans may in turn lose trust in the medical profession and avoid neccesary medical care for fear of not having filled out the neccessary paperwork, or having known someone who filled it all out and still got surgically redistributed*
We've got the increased potential for error - which we have to assume doesn't matter because any adverse reaction to that would affect only those backward, superstitious, sentimental sub-humans who actually grieve and would be stupid enough to actually express feelings towards their loss and loved one.
It also means ignoring the reasons why there is such a significant increase in the need for donors because looking at that particular issue would highlight that changing to opt-out in an effort to satisfy that demand, is actually just sacrificing beliefs of the unenlightened, feely people for those who believe in their right to self-indulge, be completely irresponsible and not suffer the consequences of it.
My point - Saving lives is important, it's just not the be-all, end-all excuse to throw reason out the window and pass the burden onto someone else. Spurrious moral reasoning and dubious math based on pure conjecture does not a life save.
Aplologies, I'm going to clip this next bit a little for the sake of space.
Kidneys are not removed through keyhole surgery and the appendix is only removed with keyhole surgery..
Yes, and necro-heal gel isn't actually real, nor is the ability to trap the spiritual essence of eyeballs..
That comment was brought up in light of all those who disagree with the use of accurately descriptive terms (yet like "meat" and "decaying corpse"?) and seem to believe that organ removal is a magical process which in no way permanently disfigures or irreparably damages the body. It seems "accuracy" and "honesty" in descriptive language is only applicable when making light of people's sentiment for their own body or that of a loved one.
For this reason, you will note I have begun to make an effort to introduce terms that side-step or avoid the realities entirely, both for the realists who selectivly need fuzzies and my own amusement.
It also attempts to seed the hint that there is a difference between the timely removal of multiple organs from a body for transplant and surgery on a living patient. Crazy point to bring it up and point out the absurdity of comparison, but I'm also the kind of person who tells kids the easter bunny isn't real.
fuck living people. Selfish assholes, still being alive and in pain and all that.
Again.. this concern only seems to apply to those who need new squishies. Applied elsewhere, it's apparently stupid, sentimental and ridiculous. There's that inconsistent moralization again.
Kagera - brilliant conjecture there, which doesn't even warrant the cut and paste required to answer. But there are a few gems, of which one is just worth the quote
Brace yourself, there's a flurry of objection about to spill forth regarding the descriptive language used.
Wait.. it's coming..
..
Huh, no objections. Go figure. Apparently sematics have double standards and only apply when used in a context supportive of one set of beliefs over another.
*Fluffied to make it less real for those advocating keeping it real.
Track Nine on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited May 2008
Now, this requires that we disregard (it's almost tradiction at this point) the fact act that the US - with it's opt-in with required request - has a higher donor rate than numerous countries which have a opt-out without required request
Except that, is this per 100,000 viable organs vs. overall number of donors, or simply overall donors by overall population.
One is convincing data, the other is simply statistics. The only analysis demonstrated thus far shows that opt-out countries are better than equivalent opt-in countries when you account for population size and mortality rates that produce viable organs vs. overall level of donations once you account for this.
It also requires that we ignore the wellbeing and impact upon any of those pesky grieving people because sentiment, belief and emotion is stupid, they're alive and not in need of new squishies. Likewise, we must ignore the likelyhood that some of those backward, superstitious, sentimental sub-humans may in turn lose trust in the medical profession and avoid neccesary medical care for fear of not having filled out the neccessary paperwork, or having known someone who filled it all out and still got surgically redistributed
Again, none of these are strong arguments against ultimately saving peoples lives. You need a more convincing argument.
Hurf durf doctors are evil is also stupid, not to mention spurious and boring. As nobody has demonstrated that there are reams of upset families in opt-out countries in Europe incensed over their way of doing things, I think neither point is at all valid.
Spurrious moral reasoning and dubious math based on pure conjecture does not a life save.
The only dubious 'math' posted in this thread was trying to support the anti-opt out side of the argument, I'd like to point out. Yet when analysed the 'maths' showed opt-out was better than opt-in at an equivalent mortality rate.
That comment was brought up in light of all those who disagree with the use of accurately descriptive terms
Blah blah blah blah.
You still demonstrated you didn't have a clue what you were talking about. You're babbling for several paragraphs to try and save face (not to mention because it's irrelevant) doesn't change that fact. I'll just take it you've taken my correction to heart and will not make such mistakes in future.
Also, I still find 'mutilation' a loaded piece of rubbish from you and it's no more 'mutilation' than standard surgery. Your bullshit about keyhole surgery, that turned out to be completely wrong anyway, doesn't actually change that.
But again, why do dead people care? They're dead.
For this reason, you will note I have begun to make an effort to introduce terms that side-step or avoid the realities entirely
You still demonstrated you didn't have a clue what the hell you were talking about. Now you're just handing yourself more rope really.
It also attempts to seed the hint that there is a difference between the timely removal of multiple organs from a body for transplant and surgery on a living patient
Yeah there is chuckles, one of these people is fucking dead. Get back to me when you've figured that one out.
Again.. this concern only seems to apply to those who need new squishies. Applied elsewhere, it's apparently stupid, sentimental and ridiculous. There's that inconsistent moralization again.
What 'inconsistent' moralisation? Again you pull something out of your ass.
I'll make it 100% clear to you: Living people are more important than dead people. This is my position. There is nothing inconsistent about valuing living people more than dead people. I have not changed on this position. Try demonstrating what 'inconsistency' on this point I have demonstrated anywhere in the thread or cease making things up.
You place more value on the (no longer existant) feelings of a dead person that the continued life of someone?
I don't understand this line of thought.
People dying of disease? Mind-blowing.
Ok, I understand now. You're an asshole.
Blow me. I love the idea that sentimentality regarding religion is silly, and to be disregarded (because note that we're not just talking about the feelings of the dead person, but also their live family)...but sentimentality regarding some random stranger dying of a disease is absolutely critical.
Sorry, if I actually worried about every person on this planet who died, I'd go insane. What, with 100,000 at a time dying from cyclo-namis every other week. And 10,000 here and there in civil wars.
Sure, if a death is easily preventable (many of those others are preventable, it just costs a little more) I'm all for it...which is why I support organ donation with my own organs. And urge others to do the same. I just don't support forcing (or, a bit more accurately, duping) others into doing the same. Hell, desperaterobots and Kagera have explicitly admitted that the only real advantage (and the one they hope to exploit) of an opt-out system over opt-in with universal polling is that they'll be able to take the organs of at least some subset of the population who would otherwise have said no.
Yep, and that one kidney saves one life, whereas that $10400 saves considerably more lives. Though, apparently the life of the one person needing the kidney is more important than the dozens saved via other means. There's a serious inconsistency the the valuation of life and the moralization used to justify shitting all over one set of beliefs in favor of another which is already represented.
How much does one single organ transplant cost? And how much in treatment prior to the transplant? And how much food could that buy, or shelters, or psychological counseling? Of course, here I'm obviously projecting on the US...I suppose that it's entirely possible that the social safety net and psychological services available in Australia are outstanding, and it's also possible that an organ transplant costs less as well. But I'm guessing it still costs quite a bit, it's just that that cost gets spread to everybody...which is cool. But can you honestly say that if your only concern was people living longer, better lives that there is no better way that money and time could have been spent? Or are we only concerned about the longer, better lives of people living in first-world countries who need new organs?
Because I'm guessing if you took all that money spent on organ transplants, and the doctors doing it, and sent it to Africa or elsewhere you could probably save a lot more man-years of life than with organ transplants.
So yeah, by that logic organ donors (and organ recipients) kill poor African children. And are obviously evil people.
Obviously I'm not entirely serious with that last bit...just thinking maybe a few people need to reconsider just how high their horses actually are.
Ah, who needs to keep trying to do that when the counter argument has managed to miss even the most basic of key factors influencing organ donation and seems trapped on stage 1: "olol - save lives" conjecture.
Because you haven't explained why the default option should be respecting someone's belief in their religion over someone's belief in saving lives. Note the important noun option.
Any time now Track Nine. Please demonstrate how an opt out system is actually worse than an opt in system. And if you go with people's beliefs please demonstrate why those beliefs should be more important than someone's belief in saving lives. And don't try and take that on some objectivist tangent because they can opt out if they want to, they aren't being forced.
Any time now Track Nine. Please demonstrate how an opt out system is actually worse than an opt in system. And if you go with people's beliefs please demonstrate why those beliefs should be more important than someone's belief in saving lives. And don't try and take that on some objectivist tangent because they can opt out if they want to, they aren't being forced.
The only thing I can think of there an opt out system is less ideal than an opt in system is that with an opt out, by default the government/hospital is assuming that parts my corpse are their property at time of death. My family may feel differently.
Personally, I've already opted in, and I don't care if I'm divvied out, fed to worms, or decapitated, staked, and incinerated. I assume that my body is useless to me once i've shed the mortal coil.
However, from a property rights perspective, I'd say my corpse belongs to my family, along with the rest of my estate. Note: they have the same thoughts I do as far as organs go.
ETA: I'd say that the choice of what belongs to who would be my choice... and giving my remains to anyone but my family, which, again, from a property rights perspective, by default, doesn't seem to follow with every other property law I've ever seen. If I don't have a will, it all gets divvied to my family, unless I have no family (in which case it goes to the state). If I want someone else to have my stuff, I have to put that in my will.
Your corpse isn't actually property of your family either. They're only allowed to dispose of it how they see fit within a certain limit and within a certain amount of time or the government will take it from them anyway.
And regardless, that's still just a belief in what your rights ought to be.
Posts
Yeah, but people are allowed to forgo whatever they want if they feel it impedes on their religious or moral beliefs, although existentialism tends to be more atheistic in value -- and more towards inner recognition. But I only took Philosophy 101 so take it with a grain of salt.
I'm glad you're laughing at how dumb your own strawman is, it saves me having to point out the gigantic fallacy you just made for you. But just in case, the argument is that saving more lives potentially is worth more than not doing so. Some idiot put "atheism" in there somewhere, I'm not sure how as I prefer to go along with the whole "not killing people thing" more, but whatever.
How much are peoples lives worth?
And also note that although you believe that beliefs exist in a vacuum, you believe that enough Christians will be outraged by having the right to refuse to donate their organs that they will riot hugely. This is all terribly consistent, I'm sure.
As I've read in the thread, family members can override the opt-in without having to show any paper-work, unless you go the extra steps of filing a legally-binding form.
That shit is not only stupid, but it's also off-topic (like the crap about religion and smug atheists), so let's drop it.
One of the last groups that was raised was those who have strong objections, and would forget to opt-out, and their families' trauma. But families can override the wishes of the opt-out system in that case, so that's not legitimate concern. And we're down to those who oppose the system strongly, will forget to opt-out, and have no families. And with that, I'd don't see a big enough potential harm to outweigh the gain of saving people's lives.
Say what? That's like the opposite of how it works here - family members can say no, and it is a big problem.
Medical News Today
Meh, if they care that much the onus should be on them. Opt out makes complete sense.
People dying of disease? Mind-blowing.
Again, I don't consider people dying of disease to be some horrible wrong. That's just kind of what happens...we're mortal, after all. Personally I am an organ donor, but I'm just not comfortable with assuming that everybody would (or rather, will) donate their organs unless they've said otherwise.
I don't see why this can't be fixed without moving to an opt-out program. Hell, you could just make the form at the DMV legally binding. Problem solved.
You could also require that somebody make an active decision on that form...make non-donors actually check a "no" box. I fail to see how getting a positive decision from everybody is inferior to simply assuming (one way or the other), especially since even allowing an opt-out implies that you're respecting the idea that some may not be willing to donate.
I apologise for the next one, as I can't provide a link to it. A campaign booklet from the NHS Organ Donor Register, entitled "You've got what it takes to save a life" and printed earlier this year, reads:
Families do not have a legal right to veto organ donation in the UK.
I'd be surprised if they can't get around that by way of lawyering up, though.
My idea, again, being to require a positive and legally binding answer from everybody at some convenient "collection" point...hospital (on first visit), DMV, tax forms, wherever. In the US, you could require a positive yes/no answer (instead of a check for yes or else assume no, as it generally is now) on the question, and make the form legally binding (thus allowing you to tell the family members to piss off).
- People are likely to change their minds from when they broke their wrist skateboarding at age 19 and went to the hospital to when they wound up in a car crash at age 37. 'BOY I SURE BETTER TICK THE OTHER BOX NEXT TIME I FILL OUT MY INCOME TAX-- HEY IS THAT A TREE OH GOD *SQUISH*'
- people might not want to spend the time thinking about what happens to them after they die (i mean, shit, tax forms are depressing enough) and may tick no to avoid the After I Die conversation with mom/wife/kids/whatever; even though, when they really think about it, they would have probably ticked yes.
- Hey all these people didn't tick yes OR no -- so we assume...? Anddddd we're back at square one.
Hardly watertight counter arguments, and I actually sort of agree with your idea as probably being the fairest. I think I'm pro opt-out, however, because it places the onus on people with strong beliefs which potentially prevent another person from living a longer, better life, to perform an action which explicitly makes them confront the fact, and make peace with the fact, that they are totally selfish assholes.
Having signed the OPT IN & Family can't overrule options could carry a small but tangible benifit (+x pts in the formula to determine if you receive an organ should you need one?) I Donate blood on the principle that one day I may need a blood transfusion, everyone should do their part, especially if they expect to reap the rewards.
Not all people are capable of making the OPT OUT decision if you went that rout. Is it fair to have mentally handicapped people automatically opted in to something they don't understand regardless of their beliefs?
Personally I like the sound of this: (freeze me till you can repair me then bring back to life)
http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/archives/05-06/feb11.html
Note: frozen/cold for only a few hours at most
Obviously this isn't gonna help In all situations and I'm fine with being an organ donor if I'm like definitely beyond all hope of revival dead.
I fail to see how this is worse that never having them tick the box in the first place and just assuming "yes." At least at some point they made the positive decision.
These people are idiots. But hey, it's their choice to be idiots.
A non-issue. If it's a DMV form, you simply don't give them their license until they choose a box. If it's a tax return, you kick it back to them as invalid (as you would for any other filing error). Keep in mind that in all these cases you're attaching the question to a form/process that the person wants/needs to get done...so you simply don't allow them to avoid the question.
Really only one of them holds any weight at all (the whole "avoiding the converation" argument). And I think forcing a positive decision (rather than the current "check box for yes, do nothing for no") really accomplishes the same as far as making them confront the fact.
Then again, here is where I'm confronted with my tendency to be (on the scale of this forum, not general society) the crotchety conservative. You put it as me "potentially preventing another person from living a longer, better life"....but as far as I'm concerned it's their disease doing that. I'm simply failing to help cure them. I'm not preventing them from living a longer, better life any more than I'm preventing a bum from living a longer life by not giving him ten bucks. I don't need that ten bucks by any stretch of the imagination....I'll just waste it on a videogame or eating out. But it's mine to give...I'm not keeping it from him. Just like my organs.
Yes, even when I'm dead. As with any other property, I'm free to have done with it what I choose when I die. I can choose to give my Xbox to my wife, to my kids, to my buddy from college...I can also, in my will, make it clear that I'd rather have it crushed then thrown in the garbage. I can choose to give my organs to somebody to (potentially) help them live a longer, better life...or I can have them planted in the ground or burned and placed in a spiffy urn. My choice.
Of course, part of it may also be because I don't buy the whole "but they'd dead, so it doesn't matter" argument. I'm one of those unenlightened people who believes in unicorns and such, so I think that what you do to somebody's body after death may actually matter. Enough so that you should go taking it apart and handing out the pieces unless they've indicated that they're actually okay with that. But, like I said, I think we need to set it up so that everybody is basically forced to make that decision, and that it's legally binding (which means once you've decided your family has more say). If society as a whole is actually so supportive of donation as to justify an opt-out system, this should achieve the same effect.
You admit yourself that it's a strawman, but I'm curious as to why you're deriding it when we're just talking about a secular approach to law? That's the correct choice.
Lack of sentimentality? Hell, the sad fact is that the reason a donor shortage is becoming more of a problem is because ever more people are leading terrible lifestyles and their choices are getting them into circumstances that require replacement of squishy bits. If you want lack of sentimentality, then solve the issue by cutting off anyone whose lifestyle may have contributed to their needing a transplant - Drink, diet, smoking, drugs - if you've done them or abused them, you're out. Voila, the genuine needy suddenly have WAY less competition.
Want to get colder again. Put an end to further road safety campaigns and improvements. It's one of the biggest contributing factors to organ donation which means that as lives are saved, lives are lost. That idea may be a little more popular given the, shall we say, 'inconsistent' sentiment shown towards saving lives.
If Atheist views are to be used as a be all justification, then yeah it's gonna be picked up on. Sorry you don't like it being picked up on, but when it's the source of one side of an argument it is going to come up.
'evilutionist' - I've not heard the term before. Then again, I'm not bashing away at religions so clearly i must be anti-science and deeply religious. You can't possibly go against some good old belief bashing without being religous yourself. Obviously.
Let's not go round the morally bankrupt for not donating again, shall we? It's a fruitless argumentative line which falls apart when compared with any of a thousand simpler and more effective things a person could do which would save WAAAAY more lives, but which are ignored for far more petty and selfish reasons.
Let's compare.
A person choses to donate $2 a week and in the space of a lifetime contibutes to the saving dozens of lives. Said person chooses not to be a donor because of their beliefs which happened to inspire them to make the weekly contribution.
Another person buys a few cans of coke a week rather than donate $2 but doesn't opt-out and contributes to saving a life through inaction and indifference.
Value judgement - the guy who donated organs did nothing, made no effort to care and instead relied on someone else to utilize his inaction. The first guy's gesture required he make a choice and be proactive in following it through. The second guy required someone to assume good intentions for him.
Clearly though, the first guy is a bastard because his beliefs prevented him from donating.
I'm on the register and give money to charity - value judgement: I'm Righteous.
I could have given more and have restrictions on what they can take - value judgement: I'm morally corrupt.
I won't patronize you by posting the definition, nevertheless the language usage is correct and very accurate. I use it, because it's honest and doesn't skirt around the subject or attempt to decieve or hide the actual process or meaning, as terms like "assumed consent" do.
"Extract" is mechanical and non-descript. "Harvest" side-steps the actual procedure and effect. "Sugically relieved" - well, I made that up in the process of trying to find fluffy terms for cutting up a body, cracking open the chest cavity, cutting away internal tissue, removing organs and other key parts and permanently disfiguring what was a person.
Plus, given a transplant co-ordinator found it an honest enough term to address and use when they convinced me to register, then I see no problem in it's use.
Then again, terms like meat and rotting carcass are being to describe people's remains in the face of "sentiment" and "supersticion" blamed for an attachment to one's own body or that of a loved one. Strikes me as a little dubious that approriate descriptive language would only come up now..
Edit: I also like how you think removing an appendix is mutilation.
Re: Edit
You're right. Organ extraction from a dead body is a clean, non-invasive, non-disfiguring procedure that in no way results in irreparable damage or significant physical alteration. The Appendix, kidneys and other small organs are removed through time-consuming keyhole surgery. The spiritual essense of the eyes is extracted and formed into corneas while major organs like the lungs and heart are teased through the persons nose thereby avoiding the otherwise rigid and obstructive bonestructure making up their chest. Then special necro-heal gel is applied to completely undo the few minor incisions that were needed.
Fluffy.
Guess how I feel about giving to charity.
$2 a week is $104 a year. If you start when you're born and live to be 100, that's a total of $10,400. What did that guy from the last thread place the cost of a single kidney at, about four times that?
Ok, I understand now. You're an asshole.
So saving peoples lives isn't actually important? Because a mechanism that promotes saving peoples lives is not inherently bad to me by any stretch. Maybe you can explain why it's bad, bearing in mind "olol invisible X says otherwise" is not a convincing argument.
Kidneys are not removed through keyhole surgery and the appendix is only removed with keyhole surgery if it isn't hugely inflamed. If it is very inflamed, it needs to be removed through more invasive, typical surgery. Please know what you are talking about before you open your mouth and make yourself look more stupid. Just as a hint: If the appendix is badly inflamed and you cut it up using keyhole surgery to remove it, you release a whole load of bacteria directly into the patients bloodstream. Can you tell me what happens when you release a huge horde of bacteria into someones bloodstream?
Incidentally, keyhole surgery when applied to kidneys is usually used to remove tumours, not the organ itself. In any event, you mustn't think much of my mother though, who required open heart surgery (cracking open the sternum in fact) three times. She's so badly mutilated, we can't even look at her. Poor mom and the fact she required a terrible surgical procedure that mutilated her for life. You'd almost think people would be smart enough not to have diseases that needed major surgery or transplants to begin with. Clearly, dead people need to retain all their organs and good looks to be buried 6ft under and become worm food. When I die, I want to die intact and looking my best: fuck living people. Selfish assholes, still being alive and in pain and all that.
"But there are other ways like making people die more for being stupid lolol"
Yeah, because infringing on the rights of a living person is TOTALLY the same as a dead hunk of worm food.
"But what about they're beliefs???"
Did we not go over this as an option in OPT-OUT???
"But it's my property like an XBox"
Yeah, except almost no people will be willing their organs to loved ones, because that would be silly. So not the same.
Really I hope you guys are playing devil's advocate just for fun because the idea that more people donating organs = more lives saved is really not that hard at all.
"Why not just make people choose before getting their license/file their taxes/goes to the doctor????"
Nice idea, but people's default position on anything is 'no' because of massive lack of attention span. Maybe in a few years when donating organs is the vast norm we could move to such a system but right now we need results, not wishy-washy half-assed attempts.
Rule 34c: if it exists, someone will bitch about it.
Or, yes, fuck it, even the lazy religious fuck who through some miracle of ignorance or inaction didn't realise he could opt-out. He didn't need it anymore.
Is removing organs any more vile than what's done to a body to enable an open casket funeral?
I guess there's also giving your body to medical research but I doubt people who wouldn't want to donate organs would be up for that anyway.
I wasn't making any implication otherwise, just that if people find organ donation too 'icky' then they probably aren't going to find being a cadaver much better.
Yep, and that one kidney saves one life, whereas that $10400 saves considerably more lives. Though, apparently the life of the one person needing the kidney is more important than the dozens saved via other means. There's a serious inconsistency the the valuation of life and the moralization used to justify shitting all over one set of beliefs in favor of another which is already represented.
Let's lose the conjecture for a moment shall we? There is a prevailing belief that changing to an opt-out system somehow magically improves donor rates and thus saves lives. Now, this requires that we disregard (it's almost tradiction at this point) the fact act that the US - with it's opt-in with required request - has a higher donor rate than numerous countries which have a opt-out without required request, and the fact that a country with one of the highest donor rates, freely admits that it cannot be attributed to the opt-out system and was down to tackling issues that actually influence saving lives and increasing said rate.
It also requires that we ignore the wellbeing and impact upon any of those pesky grieving people because sentiment, belief and emotion is stupid, they're alive and not in need of new squishies. Likewise, we must ignore the likelyhood that some of those backward, superstitious, sentimental sub-humans may in turn lose trust in the medical profession and avoid neccesary medical care for fear of not having filled out the neccessary paperwork, or having known someone who filled it all out and still got surgically redistributed*
We've got the increased potential for error - which we have to assume doesn't matter because any adverse reaction to that would affect only those backward, superstitious, sentimental sub-humans who actually grieve and would be stupid enough to actually express feelings towards their loss and loved one.
It also means ignoring the reasons why there is such a significant increase in the need for donors because looking at that particular issue would highlight that changing to opt-out in an effort to satisfy that demand, is actually just sacrificing beliefs of the unenlightened, feely people for those who believe in their right to self-indulge, be completely irresponsible and not suffer the consequences of it.
My point - Saving lives is important, it's just not the be-all, end-all excuse to throw reason out the window and pass the burden onto someone else. Spurrious moral reasoning and dubious math based on pure conjecture does not a life save.
Aplologies, I'm going to clip this next bit a little for the sake of space.
Yes, and necro-heal gel isn't actually real, nor is the ability to trap the spiritual essence of eyeballs..
That comment was brought up in light of all those who disagree with the use of accurately descriptive terms (yet like "meat" and "decaying corpse"?) and seem to believe that organ removal is a magical process which in no way permanently disfigures or irreparably damages the body. It seems "accuracy" and "honesty" in descriptive language is only applicable when making light of people's sentiment for their own body or that of a loved one.
For this reason, you will note I have begun to make an effort to introduce terms that side-step or avoid the realities entirely, both for the realists who selectivly need fuzzies and my own amusement.
It also attempts to seed the hint that there is a difference between the timely removal of multiple organs from a body for transplant and surgery on a living patient. Crazy point to bring it up and point out the absurdity of comparison, but I'm also the kind of person who tells kids the easter bunny isn't real.
Again.. this concern only seems to apply to those who need new squishies. Applied elsewhere, it's apparently stupid, sentimental and ridiculous. There's that inconsistent moralization again.
Kagera - brilliant conjecture there, which doesn't even warrant the cut and paste required to answer. But there are a few gems, of which one is just worth the quote
Brace yourself, there's a flurry of objection about to spill forth regarding the descriptive language used.
Wait.. it's coming..
..
Huh, no objections. Go figure. Apparently sematics have double standards and only apply when used in a context supportive of one set of beliefs over another.
*Fluffied to make it less real for those advocating keeping it real.
Except that, is this per 100,000 viable organs vs. overall number of donors, or simply overall donors by overall population.
One is convincing data, the other is simply statistics. The only analysis demonstrated thus far shows that opt-out countries are better than equivalent opt-in countries when you account for population size and mortality rates that produce viable organs vs. overall level of donations once you account for this.
Again, none of these are strong arguments against ultimately saving peoples lives. You need a more convincing argument.
Hurf durf doctors are evil is also stupid, not to mention spurious and boring. As nobody has demonstrated that there are reams of upset families in opt-out countries in Europe incensed over their way of doing things, I think neither point is at all valid.
The only dubious 'math' posted in this thread was trying to support the anti-opt out side of the argument, I'd like to point out. Yet when analysed the 'maths' showed opt-out was better than opt-in at an equivalent mortality rate.
Blah blah blah blah.
You still demonstrated you didn't have a clue what you were talking about. You're babbling for several paragraphs to try and save face (not to mention because it's irrelevant) doesn't change that fact. I'll just take it you've taken my correction to heart and will not make such mistakes in future.
Also, I still find 'mutilation' a loaded piece of rubbish from you and it's no more 'mutilation' than standard surgery. Your bullshit about keyhole surgery, that turned out to be completely wrong anyway, doesn't actually change that.
But again, why do dead people care? They're dead.
You still demonstrated you didn't have a clue what the hell you were talking about. Now you're just handing yourself more rope really.
Yeah there is chuckles, one of these people is fucking dead. Get back to me when you've figured that one out.
What 'inconsistent' moralisation? Again you pull something out of your ass.
I'll make it 100% clear to you: Living people are more important than dead people. This is my position. There is nothing inconsistent about valuing living people more than dead people. I have not changed on this position. Try demonstrating what 'inconsistency' on this point I have demonstrated anywhere in the thread or cease making things up.
Blow me. I love the idea that sentimentality regarding religion is silly, and to be disregarded (because note that we're not just talking about the feelings of the dead person, but also their live family)...but sentimentality regarding some random stranger dying of a disease is absolutely critical.
Sorry, if I actually worried about every person on this planet who died, I'd go insane. What, with 100,000 at a time dying from cyclo-namis every other week. And 10,000 here and there in civil wars.
Sure, if a death is easily preventable (many of those others are preventable, it just costs a little more) I'm all for it...which is why I support organ donation with my own organs. And urge others to do the same. I just don't support forcing (or, a bit more accurately, duping) others into doing the same. Hell, desperaterobots and Kagera have explicitly admitted that the only real advantage (and the one they hope to exploit) of an opt-out system over opt-in with universal polling is that they'll be able to take the organs of at least some subset of the population who would otherwise have said no.
How much does one single organ transplant cost? And how much in treatment prior to the transplant? And how much food could that buy, or shelters, or psychological counseling? Of course, here I'm obviously projecting on the US...I suppose that it's entirely possible that the social safety net and psychological services available in Australia are outstanding, and it's also possible that an organ transplant costs less as well. But I'm guessing it still costs quite a bit, it's just that that cost gets spread to everybody...which is cool. But can you honestly say that if your only concern was people living longer, better lives that there is no better way that money and time could have been spent? Or are we only concerned about the longer, better lives of people living in first-world countries who need new organs?
Because I'm guessing if you took all that money spent on organ transplants, and the doctors doing it, and sent it to Africa or elsewhere you could probably save a lot more man-years of life than with organ transplants.
So yeah, by that logic organ donors (and organ recipients) kill poor African children. And are obviously evil people.
Personally, I've already opted in, and I don't care if I'm divvied out, fed to worms, or decapitated, staked, and incinerated. I assume that my body is useless to me once i've shed the mortal coil.
However, from a property rights perspective, I'd say my corpse belongs to my family, along with the rest of my estate. Note: they have the same thoughts I do as far as organs go.
ETA: I'd say that the choice of what belongs to who would be my choice... and giving my remains to anyone but my family, which, again, from a property rights perspective, by default, doesn't seem to follow with every other property law I've ever seen. If I don't have a will, it all gets divvied to my family, unless I have no family (in which case it goes to the state). If I want someone else to have my stuff, I have to put that in my will.
And regardless, that's still just a belief in what your rights ought to be.