I think we should make harvesting of organs mandatory

[FinnAgain]

@Dr.Strangelove

Argument by assertion.

No, it’s not. If you contend otherwise, please provide proof of the attributes and personhood of someone who does not exist.

@Dr.Strangelove

Dead people exist; they’re just dead

Being dead means you do not exist. Even the word “being” really doesn’t belong in the phrase, since present-tense states of being are only open to things that actually exist. Again, if you contend otherwise, please provide proof of the attributes of these “dead people” other than the mere physical facts of their corpses. If you cannot do that, then all that exists it the corpse, and there is no personhood attached to it, of any sort.

@Dr.Strangelove

I said the exception made no sense, not the research.

If the research makes obvious sense due to its beneficial nature, then it’s not at all a contradiction to say that it’s a valid exception to mandatory donation.

[Fear_Itself]

@CitizenPained

I’m happy to donate my body to science. Since I have epilepsy, I may (or may) not be useful. At the very least, medical students can practice on my cadaver.

No, at the very least, it will be used to test motor cycle helmets or vehicle air bags:

But each year, at least 4,000 bodies become the subjects of wide-ranging experiments, the Register found. Bodies are crashed to test vehicle air bags, heads are dropped to test helmets, and arms are dropped to test snowboard wrist braces. These experiments are seldom discussed publicly and almost never disclosed to would-be donors or their families. Sometimes researchers don’t even tell families they are taking parts from their loved ones’ bodies. Since 1990, the Los Angeles County Coroner’s Office has removed parts from hundreds of accident and homicide victims without consent. The coroner gave those parts to researchers. When some families found out, they felt violated and angry.

One of the researchers, Russell Sherwin of the University of Southern California, used to ask permission from donor families, he said. He stopped doing that because too many objected – hampering his research into the prevalence of the lung disease emphysema.

“My enemy is the public,” Sherwin said, “and they are the ones I am serving.”

[Dr.Strangelove]

@FinnAgain

Again, if you contend otherwise, please provide proof of the attributes of these “dead people” other than the mere physical facts of their corpses. If you cannot do that, then all that exists it the corpse, and there is no personhood attached to it, of any sort.

What is a corpse besides a body that has stopped functioning? Take a car and throw sand in the engine and other moving parts. Is it still a car? Well, not in the sense that a car is a thing that transports a human from point A to point B. But all the basic parts are there. There is no magical essence that differentiates a live body from a dead one; it is a combination of factors, ultimately chemical and electrical in nature.

@FinnAgain

If the research makes obvious sense due to its beneficial nature, then it’s not at all a contradiction to say that it’s a valid exception to mandatory donation.

You’re still missing it. The original argument was that the dead have no rights, and that saving a life is a greater good than satisfying any emotional objections by the family.

Because suitable organ donors are so rare (Wikipedia says <3%), but research corpses are not, a potential donor that requested research should–by the original argument–also have his request ignored. Research departments can get all the corpses they want from the other 97%. But that 3% is very precious, and a state that claimed rights to all bodies should do everything it can to use them for transplants, instead of lesser applications (or applications where the exact mode is death is less critical).

[Farmer_Jane]

@Fear_Itself

No, at the very least, it will be used to test motor cycle helmets or vehicle air bags:

Haha. Whatever they need. I’d like to think my repeated head traumas make me special, though. :o

Q: Would a forced organ harvest law be ridiculously expensive?

[Guinastasia]

I would think epilepsy patients would be useful, for studying the brain, the physical differences, etc?

[YogSothoth]

@CitizenPained

Q: Would a forced organ harvest law be ridiculously expensive?

I don’t know. However, I suspect that having sick people laying around in hospitals isn’t cheap either

[FinnAgain]

@Dr.Strangelove

What is a corpse besides a body that has stopped functioning?

The difference between a human being and a pile of meat and bone. Talking about a person who is also dead is a contradiction in terms.

@Dr.Strangelove

Because suitable organ donors are so rare (Wikipedia says <3%), but research corpses are not, a potential donor that requested research should–by the original argument–also have his request ignored.

Not so. Donating a corpse to research also has positive benefits for mankind that are wasted if the corpse simply rots in a hole. If your argument is that one benefit must outweigh the other, then we can say that any corpse slated for medical research must first be rejected for potential organ donation, otherwise organ donation overrides it.

That seems acceptable as well.