Make organ donation compulsory

[pikatore]

Quote by: nilan3000 Many posters here repeatedly say "what does the dead person need the organs for?". Your logic goes by science and what science tells us. I share the same sentiment and I applaud you for that. However, you are forgetting that not everyone thinks like us and that some people have superstitious beleifs that they would rest in peace better if they were left alone as a corpse. We may not like it, but we have to respect their beleifs, no matter how weird it seems to us. Raising awareness of medicine is good, teaching people on the benefits of donating organs is good, encouraing people to help patients is good. But saying "you have to do it whether you like it or not" isnt the right path.

Well I think at the very least, it should be made that you are assumed to want to donate your organs unless you sign a form saying otherwise. That will increase donation rates, and at the same time stop some people from kicking up a stink.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Pikatore Because money can be spent on anything, it's something that has material value to everybody.

Non-essential materials are only necessary in order to satisfy emotional desires for these goods. On a base level, money is of emotional value. Similarly, organs are of a significant emotional value to some people. There is no difference between the personal value of money and the personal value of organs.

Quote by: Pikatore There are thousands of viable organs wasted every day on this planet, and countless deaths due to the inability for people to find one in time. Organs are so hard to get, they have to be flown from somewhere else, or driven halfway across the country! Meanwhile, countless organs are rotting in some graves half a mile away. That's the difference.

There are billions of dollars wasted every day on this planet, and countless deaths due to the inability of public health to provide cures for every condition. Money is so hard to get; it has to be taken forcefully from taxpayers and even then it is not nearly enough to provide a comprehensive health service. Meanwhile, countless dollars are being squandered in some mall half a mile away. There is no difference.

[nilan3000]

Quote by: pikatore Well I think at the very least, it should be made that you are assumed to want to donate your organs unless you sign a form saying otherwise. That will increase donation rates, and at the same time stop some people from kicking up a stink.

I dont have a problem with that, whoever feels strongly against donating can state that he doesnt want to do so. Though even then complications could arise, what if he didnt have the chance to fill the form or if sorrounding circumstances complicate things...damn this is one weird world we live in.

I think your alternative is still quite agreeable though. It strikes a balance between society and the individual, which is half the battle won.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Pikatore Well I think at the very least, it should be made that you are assumed to want to donate your organs unless you sign a form saying otherwise. That will increase donation rates, and at the same time stop some people from kicking up a stink.

There are ideological objections to this, but I agree with it on a practical level up to a point. People would have to be made very aware of where they stand with regards to possession of their organs, so nobody waives their right to retain their organs as a result of ignorance. Also, it could only apply to adults, so that consent is not an issue. A child’s organs are the property of his parents until he comes of age. Provided these safeguards are put in place, I don’t have a problem with it on a practical level.

It won’t stop people from complaining though; it was suggested here a while ago, but human rights groups got all pissy about it.

[Osborn F Enready]

JazzFunk said: So if the law doesn't have the authority to control everyone, does that make it useless?

No, not at all. We simply need to make law once again, reflective of individual rights, and the Constitution we claim as our core Law of the Land.
Proper limitation of government power directly affects the validity of said government. We need to restore that limitation.

JazzFunk said: Should we revert to Anarchism, just so we can all be "free"?

There is no way, it is impossible to have anarchism in any area for any length of time. All people form voluntary collectives, and those collectives provide extra security in all ways for the individuals that make them up.

A family is a collective.
A group of friends is a collective.
A neighborhood watch is a collective.
A government is a collective.

What makes one more able to use force than another in defense? Offense?

They all have their own codes of discipline, no matter how formal or informal, documented, undocumented.

JazzFunk said: Well i thought my statement was pretty clear, how is it possible for anyone to force you to do anything when you are dead, you are not capable of responding (do i need to die and come back to life to tell you this).

You are talking about physical world pressures. I am agnostic, and I don't claim to know what is after life, nor can anyone else for anyone else.

We all have a right to believe in religion as we see fit, and no law or government has the right to lay claim to the dead corpses of its people if it violates those beleifs, and pacts of contract between living and dead. A living survivor has the right to do with the loved ones body as is asked before the loved on departs, as long as it doesn't violate the rights of others.

JazzFunk said: How would your liberty be effected after death? the dead person is free from government law and authoritarianism, he exits the plains of life. Since the policy would only come into order after you die, how would it effect your current state of life?

How could I possibly say? I don't know what role the body plays, if any, in what comes next, do I? Who would I be to judge, based on MY belief, for others?

JazzFunk said: Nobody is forced to do anything, everyone has the power to make there own decisions. Various people choose to abide the law for their own reasons. So by abiding the law now are we all just simply slaves?

You misunderstood what I was saying.

We are all slaves to the law now, because the law is being used more and more to remove rights of individuals, and groups they form.

A violation of the right of one man, are a violation on the rights of all men. This is how legal precedent works.

We have allowed to many legal precedents that don't reflect the core of our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and our historic and high water mark of UNALIENABLE rights.

Every single right in the Bill of Rights, is now infringed on in some manner by laws that currently exist, though the government is FORBIDDEN by threat of revolt, petition of redress of grievance, and lawsuits that prevent it.

Simply because people haven't taken action YET, doesn't mean they won't, or aren't. The fact is, many laws that exist currently, shouldn't, as they have no basis in rights, or violation of those rights.

[Osborn F Enready]

Maybe Not said: Seriusly, if you are death, what gives you the right to own something? I mean, that is why we inherit stuff. Most corpses are burnt anyways, why not take the organs, and generate some electrisity from the heat of corpse burning?

What did you miss? The living loved ones, inherit the rights to the corpse of the deceased. It is THEIR CHOICE, not yours, which is what we are arguing.

Maybe not said: You seriusly don't see a differece? I mean, dead people don't need it, the living do. Should we not care most about the living? Or is this "The ansestors demand sacrifice" all over?

Its called, individual rights over all, equally.

[Osborn F Enready]

Pikatore said: If somebody's religious beliefs prohibited birth by caesarian section, do you think that the person could still be considered rational if she would prefer to die than have her baby be born through her stomach?

Yes, its her choice.

[Osborn F Enready]

Pikatore said: Only someone with blinkers on will keep rambling on about rights, knowing full well that making it compulsory could only save more lives.

Only an idiot can't see the connection I am making.

You are obviously a socialist in denial, or an idiot.

[pikatore]

Mabye I am a socialist in denial.

[PatrickHenry]

Superstition aside, what makes the government the rightful owner of the people's dead bodies?

That's not government's role.

Blast! I despise statists!

[JazzFunk]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy This is the problem with your argument. Value is subjective and not limited to financial worth or what you define as usefulness. The deceased’s family may value an intact corpse greatly and find it very useful in dealing with their bereavement. Whether this is for religious or emotional reasons is irrelevant: you can’t say categorically that organs are of less value to the family than money. Property rights are every bit as applicable to organs as they are to money. Hence, unless you support the government taking any and every type of property and putting it to public use when you deem the owner to be using it improperly, your argument is illogical and hypocritical.

But there are other factors you should consider, artificial things like money and houses can be earned, wheras organs cannot. Plus can you tell me in what possible way, knowing that someones organs are inside their deceased relative helps them cope? Why not collect every skin scell and peice of hair or part of his body that was lost during his life time to him and reatach it.

Besides there are no outward signs of organ donation anyway, he'll still look as good as he did before he dies. No and I dont agree with the government taking everything and putting it to public use, but in this case i do, because organs will just deteoriate anyway when wasted.

Even if the organs say were used with dealing with bereavment, most people eventually forget and move on, whereas peope who genuinely need it cant because some one cant deal with their personal issues.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy you can’t say categorically thatorgans are of less value to the family than money.

So is a persons life equivalent to money is it?


(Did anyone even read my last posts? people are repeating points that I have said)

[brien]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Hmm. What do you have that I may take from you? You should share, you know, otherwise you're just a selfish person who should be killed, then we'll harvest your organs...

PH What could a 15 year old Communist have that you may possibly want in life? It is precisely because he/she probably has nothing that they believe in Communism.

[brien]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Only an idiot can't see the connection I am making. You are obviously a socialist in denial, or an idiot.

Os; Being the CAPITALIST I am, I have instructed my family to SELL my organs to the higest bidder!

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Jazz But there are other factors you should consider, artificial things like money and houses can be earned, wheras organs cannot.

What difference does that make? Organs cannot be earned by the family from whom they are taken. The family are not obligated to waive their right to retain the organs in order to save a life any more than they are obligated to give every penny of their money towards the health services.

Quote by: Jazz Plus can you tell me in what possible way, knowing that someones organs are inside their deceased relative helps them cope? Why not collect every skin scell and peice of hair or part of his body that was lost during his life time to him and reatach it. Besides there are no outward signs of organ donation anyway, he'll still look as good as he did before he dies.

I don’t know; I’m a donor. The why doesn’t matter in the slightest; the fact is that organs do matter to the family and whether you believe the reasoning behind it to be rational doesn’t change this.

Quote by: Jazz No and I dont agree with the government taking everything and putting it to public use, but in this case i do, because organs will just deteoriate anyway when wasted.

Billions of dollars are wasted on inessential items every day, yet you do not support the government stepping in and ending it. Again, your view is inconsistent.

Quote by: Jazz Even if the organs say were used with dealing with bereavment, most people eventually forget and move on, whereas peope who genuinely need it cant because some one cant deal with their personal issues.

People are denied treatment due to lack of funds and personnel on a daily basis. This can be solved by investing more money in the health service; money that people are wasting in dealing with “personal issues” of greed. Yet you do not support the government intervening and seizing these funds. Once more, your view is inconsistent.

Quote by: Jazz So is a persons life equivalent to money is it?

Depends on your priorities. It is up to the owner of the organs to decide; just as it is up to them to decide whether or not to save lives through donating their money to the health services. Lives are equated to money under your system just as much as they are under mine, so don't get all pious.

[brien]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Superstition aside, what makes the government the rightful owner of the people's dead bodies? That's not government's role. Blast! I despise statists!

The government is no more the owner of a deceased corpse than they are the owner of a live body. Perhaps these statists would be willing to turn their bodies over to the government while they are alive and when one of the "important" statist leaders requires a liver, they will sacrifice their own when the government comes to confisgate it. Afterall, since the Communist fella here is young and has no merit for the state, and his liver is more valuable in the statist's leader's body, he should be forced to give it up for the good of the people. You see, it is the good of the people, and the fact that his liver is more valuable to the people than it is in his body, that matters most, according to him.

[pikatore]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Depends on your priorities. It is up to the owner of the organs to decide; just as it is up to them to decide whether or not to save lives through donating their money to the health services. Lives are equated to money under your just as much as they are under mine, so don't get all pious.

So you are saying that you think we are being unreasonable when we say that money can't save lives, but internal organs can? And in the end, we want to save as many lives as we can?

[Osborn F Enready]

brien said: Os; Being the CAPITALIST I am, I have instructed my family to SELL my organs to the higest bidder!

Damn good for you! At least some good can possibly come of such a tragic and unfortunate loss. I hope it is a long time away my friend, but admire your foresight.

[Osborn F Enready]

Brien said: The government is no more the owner of a deceased corpse than they are the owner of a live body. Perhaps these statists would be willing to turn their bodies over to the government while they are alive and when one of the "important" statist leaders requires a liver, they will sacrifice their own when the government comes to confisgate it. Afterall, since the Communist fella here is young and has no merit for the state, and his liver is more valuable in the statist's leader's body, he should be forced to give it up for the good of the people. You see, it is the good of the people, and the fact that his liver is more valuable to the people than it is in his body, that matters most, according to him.

I fully agree, and perfect logic.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Pikatore So you are saying that you think we are being unreasonable when we say that money can't save lives, but internal organs can? And in the end, we want to save as many lives as we can?

No, I don't think we are being unreasonable by not taking people's money, and neither do the advocates of forced organ donation. That is my point; that their stance is logically inconsistent.

[Osborn F Enready]

pikatore said: So you are saying that you think we are being unreasonable when we say that money can't save lives, but internal organs can? And in the end, we want to save as many lives as we can?

Its the methods, not the goals. Noble goals, tyrannical methods. Why not just make the methods noble also?