Blood Libel

Holy fucking shit

Israel admitted that it really was harvesting Palestinian organs without consent.

Looks like they were harvesting everyone, Israeli and Palestinian alike. They were not killing people for organs, just taking apart anyone who fell into that specific facility’s clutches.

Nasty. Glad it stopped at least ten years ago.

Yeah, it’s fucked up. Though I don’t know if I am necessarily opposed to the idea that organs are simply used for transplants and consent is irrelevant. I always sign the organ donor card because I don’t give a shit about my organs once I’m dead, if I can save someone from dying, or help them see, awesome. I don’t think familial sentimentality should trump the right to life of people who are suffering and dying.

Both the Jewish and Muslim religions, I think, have strong prohibitions on the body being mutilated after death, so I can definitely see why people would be outraged about this if they are religious. Apparently this is an instance of secular science trumping religious belief, which I think is a good thing. The organs of the dead should be removed if they can be used to help living people. (I’m not going to say “harvested,” which is a stupid, loaded term that has negative connotations and I wish people would stop using.)

What makes you certain that it has stopped? Just because the government posits that it has after incriminating evidence is brought forth? Isn’t that a little too neat? I hope the victims’ families will get more than a Hallmark card from the Israeli government. If this occured in the U.S, those families would given ample reparations.

From the Guardian article

The Israelis went on to stress that absolutely NO LAMPSHADES were stitched together from human skin because, “that would just be evil”, and therefore their medical experiments were well within the bounds of decency. Beyond that, Herr Hess (Israel spelling “Hiss”) noted that 10 years was a long time ago therefore we should let bygones be bygones–unless of course if any such events occurred, quote: “a looooooooooong time ago-- let’s say oh, about 65 years or so.” Activities from that period, Hess indicated, would naturally be seen as “an affront to God Himself”.

“At the end of the day”, Hess noted, “It really just depends on whether you believe yourself to be the Chosen People or not. How else can a rational human decide such things?”

I prefer Dr. Hiss myself. It works so much better in context. :wink:

Part of me thinks this is a great thing - take the organs you need as soon as someone dies, and to hell with asking permission (or even telling them).

Hear, hear.
Nazi comparisons upthread notwithstanding, there’s something surreal about living in a world where hundreds of people die that could potentially be saved by organ transplant while at the same time we bury or burn thousands of such organs a year.

Not to condone the behaviour of the institutes concerned. But I would prefer to live in a society where organ donation is the default, and individuals must explicitly remove themselves from the list (and family consent had no bearing).

This is the second time, today, that you have posted nonsense intended as sarcasm for the purpose of trolling the board, misusing the term “Chosen People” in both instances.

The next time you will be Warned and your posting privileges will be reconsidered.

[ /Moderating ]

I don’t know - I saw a point in that post.

No, there was no point. It has nothing to do with the unsavory assertion that it had to do with some sort of anti-gentile bigotry, or “Jewish Supremicism[sup]tm[/sup]”. The phrase “Chosen People”, in point of fact, does not point to any benefit or bonus at all, but an obligation that can be met much more easily by gentiles by simply following the Noahide Laws. It is not about arrogance of specialness, but a burden, and gentiles can be just as righteous. The misuse of the term “The Chosen People” to suggest some sort of concept that Jews are clannish and care about other Jews above all other people is unpleasant, to say the least.

It’s also contextually inaccurate, as the story makes clear that both Jews (military and non-military, as well as Muslims were used as organ donors.)

And it should be pointed out that while the situation is not necessarily wonderful, that it’s light years away from the claims of Israel deliberately killing Palestinians to harvest their organs. Hell, even the Guardian is showing its bias rather strongly in the title. Why “Israel admits harvesting Palestinian organs” when the article itself makes it quite clear that there was no such bias, at all, and every corpse that passed through had a chance to be used as an organ donor?

Meh. I personally couldn’t care less. If you’re dead, you’re dead. And if live people can use organs that used to be yours while ‘you’ still meant something, then so be it. Not asking for consent may be squicky to some, but I do not care at all. As far as I’m concerned organ donation should be mandatory unless someone’s family specifically objects, in writing, before the fact (as time is often at issue). Both corpses of former Israelis and Palestinians were used to save/improve lives.


FinnAgain I think the question of ‘whose’ lives were improved is important. Were those organs only used on Israelis or did Palestinians benefit as well? I think ultimately what is unsavory about this is that it was just done under the radar. I wonder what organ donor recipients in Israel are thinking right now knowing that they might have an organ from someone who didn’t consent.

I suppose. If organs were parceled out based on any criteria other than a pure triage assessment, then I’d object to the implementation but not the program itself. But if it was simply a question of letting organs rot instead of putting them into someone, then no. I’d much rather that a hunk of lifeless meat be used to help the living than it thrown into a hole in the ground because they couldn’t find someone of the ‘correct’ ethnicity/nationality to plug some organs into.

Yes, but that should be decided by official policy not by the whim of the department. I’d support having to opt out of organ donation rather than having to opt in. The only thing I don’t like about this is that the rules of the game weren’t known to everyone.

I’d agree. I think that the doctor should have been fired and not just reassigned, but I still believe that the action itself was right but that it should’ve been carried out in accord with an above-board policy.

But all things considered, I can’t really get all that upset about it.

I’d support an “opt-out” policy as well, but without such an explicit policy, consent is mandatory, and otherwise removal of any organs and tissues is improper. In this particular case, even in the absence of roving military squads kidnapping people, stripping them of vital organs and returning the stitched-up bodies under cover of darkness (which was what the piece in the Swedish newspaper was alleging), the described actions were wrong. I don’t know what orthodox Jewish and Muslim laws say about organ/tissue harvesting in general, but I suspect there are problems in both religions.

You may not feel the same way after this story gets fully exploited for political and other purposes.

Nah, I’ll still feel the same. And I fully expect it to be played to the hilt by the usual suspects. As Tom notes we’ve already had, twice in one day, certain comments about anti-gentile brutality linked to a misrepresentation of “The Chosen People”. I fully expect this to be used both for political purposes in general and to see various formulations here on the Dope as well.

But as for the program itself, I don’t really care. I grok religious objections, but I don’t have all tat much of a problem violating religious taboos in order to save/help living people.
To each their own on that point, I guess.

Agreed. You sew things up, the body is viewed in a casket, all made up and clothed - no one needs to know it’s short a kidney or two.

That said, the reason I feel this way is because organ donation is an opt in, not an opt out. I agree completely that organ donation should be automatic, and if your religion is strongly against it (or if you’re silly enough to think that doctors are going to let you die for that nice healthy liver you’ve got in you), you have a non-organ donation checkmark on your driver’s license.

I can’t imagine that many Palestinians would be happy that their organs were used to save or improve the life of the people they view as their enemy and occupier. I sympathize with the idea of non-consensual organ donation to some extent, but the context within which this was done seems unbelievably disrespectful.