How about the idea that you might be removed from life support more quickly if people were waiting around for your organs? While in the best case this would just mean ending your vegatative state sooner, it also could mean you don’t get the change (no matter how remote) of recovery.
I’ve heard people say they worry that doctors won’t work as hard to save their lives if there are half a dozen transplant teams just outside the door waiting to scavenge parts.
[cue creepy music]
…becuase the man who inherits my hands may find them urging him to kill again!
[cut creepy music]
Thanks.
Ever see Monty Python’s Meaning of life?
If you fill out an organ donation card, they will come to your home and take it from you while you are still alive(well, you won’t be alive for long though).
But then Eric Idle will step out of the fridge and convince you to donate your liver by telling you how small you are compared to the galaxy.
Do I have your permission to use the above arguement the next time the Blood Bank or a surgeon pages me at 2 AM? Why should my needed rest be interrupted by the selfish demands of a total stranger who is going to die eventually anyway? After all, I’m being personally inconvienced by this call, unlike the typical organ donor (who, being dead, is in no way inconvienced by the donation).
Bottom line for me is that we are morally obligated to act in a situation where helping others provides a great benefit to them at little or no cost to ourselves. I think that is a good description of cadaveric organ transplantation. The situation with living donor transplantation is trickier to assess.
How about: it is my body, in life or in death, and I forbid you from taking what I do not want you to have.
The end.
In no way should a person ever be obligated to donate organs. The mere fact that one is not obligated to do a thing is a philisophical backdoor for not doing a thing.
Is it truly your body, even in death? Can a dead person really own anything?
A good question, but until “mutilation of corpse” laws are removed from the books, I’d say it is a moot point. The philisophical justification for mutilation of corpse lws seem to have a direct relationship to organ donation refusal, IMO… but that justification, of course, is IMO a matter of personal preference. I think we should use dead people for food, but what do I know.
foolsguinea
I guess I’ll just have to wait for another Heart. A shame since you don’t seem to be using yours.
I disagree. If we are to debate the ethics of organ donation, we can just as easily question whether such laws are just – and whether they should cover organ donation.
Well, hey, I’m never one to shy away from a philosophical conversation, but something like organ donation seems to entail the idea of, well, donation, and as such, contains the ability to refuse. No?
Interesting.
And who decides which person has more value than another ?
A younger person who is a drug user, spent most of his time in jail, low education skills, low social and intellectual abilities rates higher than an upstanding member of society, who has paid taxes and contributed to his community all his life on your scale.
Different people willl have different opinions on who has more value than another person. Whose value system is put into place to judge which person is more worthy ? Who are you to think that your value system is the correct one. I for one am horrified that you put yourself up as able to judge who is more worthy of the chance at life.
And, exactly what has reproductive status got to do with whether or not you live or die ? Ever heard of life insurance ?
Exactly. It’s called organ donation, but many respondents to this thread have used the term “moral obligation” in their arguments. These two phrases appear to be mutually exclusive to me. If I am “morally obligated” to do something, than can it be called a “donation”?
I think the use of these two conflicting phrases is an attempt to reconcile some beliefs would could potentially come into conflict: i.e., A Person’s body is their own, and it must remain undefiled if it is their wish or that of their kin. But, Human life has value. The living need those organs more than the dead. Hence, I am "morally obligated to make a free-will “donation.”
I think society as a whole would be better of if we decided as a group to jettison the first belief: that the fate of a person’s body remains under their or their family’s control after death. In a society like this, every usuable organ would be harvested from every corpse, without exception. (And maybe an obligation to keep the body looking suitable for an open burial might be included.)
A policy such as this would not only benefit more people, but would remove the hypocritical conflict in terms.
Of course. It is a moral obligation and not a legal one. I am very much against the practice of placing morality in law, as morality is highly subjective.
I believe you do have a moral obligation in this case. I cannot see any moral reason why someone would object to saving a person’s life at no demonstrable cost to themselves. However, that is my opinion. My opinion governs me, not society. I can certainly hold the opinion – and let you know my opinion – that to refuse organ donation is immoral without requiring in some way to make you donate. Hence, it is still a donation.
**
Not really. You are completely free to be an immoral person. Being a moral and ethical person is certainly voluntary, and hence making a decision to do something that a moral person would do is also voluntary.
**
I believe that this would cause a lot of problems. After all, there are strong religious beliefs among some that would oppose this. I am loathe to force people to violate their religious beliefs in so long as they are not violating the rights and freedoms of others.
**
I don’t believe any hypocrisy is present here. Rather, I believe that it is quite natural for people to be torn between allowing people the freedoms and rights to make choices (even bad ones) and the wish to make society better by following personal ethics and standards. On the one hand, it would save lives to do this. On the other hand, many believe that freedoms and rights are so intrinsic that they are worth dying for.
In this case, I must stand by freedoms. A person’s body is ultimately their property, and I do not want to start passing laws that take bodies (even dead ones) away from the person. Even if such a law were possible to pass, the hostility towards it would be overwhelming. In the end, I do not think that this would be positive.
We are making progress. In my state, if you want to get or renew a driver’s license, you are always asked if you want to be made an organ donor. I hope that this will continue and that we can create more programs to encourage people to be organ donors without strong-arming them into it.
So, fluid, you’re saying that a person is ethically obligated to save lives? At what cost?
You’re right, a policy such as the one you describe (dead bodies should automatically provide organs for those in need - under a strict regulation and surveillance, I would add) would benefit a lot of people
However, there’s no hypocritical conflict in terms. Moral obligations make up the norms of the social conduit babies assimilate in their process of maturization. What represents an external obligation for a kid, through growing up, is internalized and becomes part of the social ego of a mature person, who thus decides to willfully fulfill a moral obligation.
Bodies cannot be owned by anyone else but the “selves” inhabiting them during their lives, and by their families, after the bodies become "“corpses”.
Many of us have morals profoundly different than our parents, and certainly different from the rest of America (for example, though it could of course be any country), so it seems that assimilation is not the only source of morality and obligation.
I agree that a person’s organs are theirs to do with as they please, within the confines of law and their own morality (though morality always has the right to trump law IMO), and as such they may certainly elect cremation intact and donate nothing, or donate their entire body to science.
We should never create a societal construct which promotes, or hopes for, the death of some to ensure the lives of others. I think that is downright sickening, to tell the truth.
Here’s an example of a real (if flawed, IMHO) rationale:
I have a friend who will never sign his donor line on his license because he’s afraid that doctors, in their zeal to get the organs to a donor, stat, will cause them to give up on him when he still might have a chance… I’ve argued with him about it, but I really couldm’t prove him wrong except that the few doctors I know say it’s bullshit (and somewhat offensive)…
Actually what I meant to express (and thought I did, but I will happily clarify) was that I believe that when given an opportunity to save a person’s life when the cost is virtually nil, I believe it is a moral obligation to do so. This I believe is the case with organ donation. I can see no moral reason why a person should not donate organs that are to be discarded anyway (though of course I remain open for suggestions).
I don’t presume to have a working scale of ethics for every situation, so I’m afraid I’m not equipped to answer your question fully.
Additionally (in case this was not clear), as I said I would not force my personal ethics about organ donation on another person. This is simply my opinion for this case.
’
Correct. People are free to behave in a petty and self-centered manner. However, that does not mean that they should, nor does it make their behavior any more palatable.
An interesting solution to the shortage of organs has been proposed, and I think there is hope for it. Some doctors have proposed that, instead of having to make it known whether or not you want to donate your organs (via a form, card, etc.), you will only have to deal with paperwork if you DON’T want to donate them. A lot of lazy people would be freed from obligation.
“Here’s an example of a real (if flawed, IMHO) rationale:
I have a friend who will never sign his donor line on his license because he’s afraid that doctors, in their zeal to get the organs to a donor, stat, will cause them to give up on him when he still might have a chance… I’ve argued with him about it, but I really couldm’t prove him wrong except that the few doctors I know say it’s bullshit (and somewhat offensive)…”
As creepy as that sounds, the medical profession is far from free of just that sort of thing. In Quebec, pregnant Catholic women started flocking to Jewish hospitals because there was evidence that, should trouble arise, the Catholic doctors and nurses would always choose the baby’s life over the mother’s. Why? Because even if it would only live an hour, that was enough time to baptize it and save its soul.