Quote:
Quote by: PatrickHenry  Yes, in my opinion, it is better. But...
Should there be legislation that will force everyone to do the "better" thing?
Who says what is "better?"
If I believe it would be better for your property to be under my control, is that a good enough reason for you to give it up? Or will you resist me?
How about if I have all the powers of the law and the justice system behind me?:eek: |
Well I would resist, but if I was dead I wouldn't. Property is a lot different to organs, property can be used by relatives, whereas organs cannot. I'm simply trying to understand what so wrong with hospitals taking what relatives cant use. Besides the persons body will be eaten by scavenger bacteria if not used anyway.
I can understand how people would prefer the option of donating instead of the government forcing people to do so after death. But there are just not enough people donating organs to meet the quota. Some people on the forums say it is a form of larceny, but isn't the outcome of saving someones life more important than stealing. For example, Martyrdom is sacrificing yourself for others or religion, so can you see how something as bad as suicide can be justified to save lives or promote religion even though suicide is regarded as immoral.
I'm not going to force my ideas upon you, I just want you to understand that many people are dying because people are refusing to donate organs voluntarily after death.
I guess you could view organs as garbage, why keep something you cant use? (sorry if this analogy offends anyone)