Make organ donation compulsory

[The Bacon Guy]

It's not at all similar to the government taking their money - the money will be used by the family. The organs will rot in the ground without doing anybody any good at all.

And for everyone, some organ tissue literally worth 10 cents of carbon and other basic elements and chemicals is a hell of a lot different than a hefty sum of money.

Both value and usefulness are subjective and are certainly not up to you to decide with regards to other people's property. An intact corpse might be of great value to the deceased's family and "useful" in dealing with the bereavement. Whether this value comes from the family's religious beliefs or simply from the desire for their relative's wishes to be carried out doesn't matter. It's up to them to do what they want with the property left to them.

The only thing keeping people from going along with this idea is superstition and myths about needing your rotted flesh in another life.

Maybe so, but people are free to believe what they want. People donate money to the church because of superstition ad myths, but I don't hear anyone suggesting that religious people's money should be seized by the govenrment because the are not using it "properly".

Or maybe some of you still have a bit of a moral dilemma concerning death.

Like Brien, I am a donor by choice. The issue here with most of us is not that we have moral issues with organ donation itself, but that you are removing a fundamental right, not only from the deceased but from the family.

[Lotharia]

The OP was rhetorical, of course - since it will never happen. An exercise in "what if," I suppose.
There are limits on what we allow religious folks to "get away with" legally. People can't form a religion whose god prefers them to drive on the opposite side of the streets and demands six virgin sacrifices each month. What we were considering is another legal limit on the goofiness of religious dogma - OK to have your religion, but you can't keep your organs when you're dead.

[PatrickHenry]

I'll gladly donate my dick.

It has a proven track record and I hope it proves useful to the recipient.

The rest of me will be burned in the crematory.

[Osborn F Enready]

Lotharia said:
OK to have your religion, but you can't keep your organs when you're dead.

Property is property, and it is a right communicated while living on what is to be done, that is their right.

I'm getting cremated....intact, unless I donate to someone before I kick.

[brien]

What we were considering is another legal limit on the goofiness of religious dogma - OK to have your religion, but you can't keep your organs when you're dead

.

The only idea that is "goofy" here is the idea that government should force people to do something against their will with their own private property.

In the USA, we have the RIGHT to LIFE, as bestowed upon us by the creator and listed in the Declaration of Independence. That right to life includes the management of our bodies. Government merely guarantees and protects that unalienable right endowed by our creator, and that is why YOU can't take it away.

[brien]

The OP was rhetorical, of course - since it will never happen. An exercise in "what if," I suppose.
There are limits on what we allow religious folks to "get away with" legally. People can't form a religion whose god prefers them to drive on the opposite side of the streets and demands six virgin sacrifices each month. What we were considering is another legal limit on the goofiness of religious dogma - OK to have your religion, but you can't keep your organs when you're dead.

Please answer one question: Do you favor abortion or right to life?

[brien]

I'll gladly donate my dick.

It has a proven track record and I hope it proves useful to the recipient.

The rest of me will be burned in the crematory.

Lorena Bobbit's ex, John Bobbit, will probably phone you there PH.

[The Bacon Guy]

There are limits on what we allow religious folks to "get away with" legally. People can't form a religion whose god prefers them to drive on the opposite side of the streets and demands six virgin sacrifices each month. What we were considering is another legal limit on the goofiness of religious dogma

The two examples you give are not relevant to organ donation. In those examples, the person in question is directly causing death or endangering life. This is illegal because people have a right to life as defined in the legal system and in the constitution.

In the case of organ donation, the person refusing to donate his or her organs is not infringing upon anyone else's rights, be they legal or constitutional. Nowhere is it stated that a sick person has an unconditional right to be cured. Furthermore, taking the organs against the wishes of the deceased and the deceased's family to whom the organs were entrusted is a direct violation of property rights, property rights being very well defined elsewhere in the legal system.

[Milton Bradley]

I'll gladly donate my dick.

It has a proven track record and I hope it proves useful to the recipient.

The rest of me will be burned in the crematory.

Leave it to the mature old crank to make the convesation vulgar.

[nilan3000]

This has nothing to do with religion or superstitions. The thought that a person will have his organs donated to someone else against his personal will insults the whole concept of human rights.

Now dont get me wrong, I am an organ donor and I have my body signed up for medical research after I die, but that is my choice and mine only. I would be VERY upset if somebody told me that my organs cannot be used for donation because it is religiously improper. However, on the same note, I must also accept the fact that many other people will be VERY upset if somebody told them that their organs will be used for donation, regardless of what they feel about it.

I am not a blindly idealistic person who beleives that such things are unethical or wrong just because there are moral conflicts regarding the issue. But even I realise how unfair it is to infringe on somebody's rights and inform them that what is done with their bodies is beyond their control.

I dont beleive in the afterlife, but MANY people do. Many people beleive in the concept of 'resting in peace'. Their beleifs may not mesh well with ours and they may seem stubborn and stupid to cynics like this, but the truth is that there are two sides to every coin. If we dont respect their side of the coin, we are the ones who are stubborn and stupid, not them.

[Epistemologist]

Organ donation is good and it does save lives and it is better for the economy.

However, doing it against the doner's [sic] wishes is pointless.

I agree with what you said.

Organ donation is societally beneficial, but it wouldn't really happen without the donor's wishes anyway. And it wouldn't be considered altruistic unless the donor actually wanted the organs donated.

But I sincerely understand the frustrations of many doctors and the families of patients needing organs. The issue's even been touched a lot in those medical TV shows like House, when House steals the organs from a dead body to save a patient.

I should also note that in a sort of game theoretical viewpoint, organ donation isn't really a zero-sum game. The loss for one dead individual could mean lots of saved lives from the various organs used for transplants and research. But like I suggested earlier, perhaps it's not worth the price.

[nilan3000]

I agree. I too am all for organ donation and realise how beneficial it could be to devolopment in the health sector. However, is it fair for a person to live his life, knowing that his organs are going to be removed from him once he is dead, when his religious and moral viewpoint is that the body should not be tampered with?

Trying to hamper the will of the masses, even if it may be for their own good, will never work. Junk food isnt good for health and it would be beneficial to mankind if junk food was completely banned, but would any of us support a ban on junkfood? (i know i wouldnt!)