I don’t think that’s an example of a selfless gift at all though. It’s an inheriitence, given because, being dead, you have no more use for it. And considering it’s saddled with conditions which you, the giver, based on your own priorities, it certainly isn’t free of self. Not to say it’s not a lovely gift, or one that should go unappreciated, but selfless? Not at all.
Along the same lines, I don’t know if I would even consider organ donation to be a selfless gift on the part of the donor. They’re dead, they can no longer “give” at all, selflessly or otherwise. If anyone could be said to be giving a gift in this scenario, it would perhaps be the donor’s mother. After all, this is something she herself has created. Something designed, built, and birthed by her own body that is now being used to support a system that doesn’t carry her blood. I don’t think a mother should be able to override her grown children’s wishes to donate, but still, I can see the gift in that.
Actually, I’ve been really surprised by the responses my little OP has spawned, and while I haven’t agreed with everyone who has responded it’s been fascinating reading. I wrote this out of frustration and a feeling of hopelessness, and I really thank those who took the time to read it an evaluate their own stance on organ harvesting. You never know the good you might do with such a simple choice. Thank you to the well-wishers for my cousin, I can only hope they work.
It’s a completly rational justification that is not religious. If there is an infentisimle (sic) chance of extending my life vs a chance at saving a random person, I’m going to choose me. You may disagree, but it’s not irrational.
Dio,
I don’t understand your position then. Can you clarify?
You said these three statements:
Does the second statement replace the first?
If you believe the government ought to be able to take possession of a body in the interest of saving a life, but then also believe that a form of compensation would be justified, does that not recognize an inherent value in the body that is being taken? If there is no value, what would be the purpose of the compensation? If there is a value, wouldn’t it follow that someone has an ownership of that thing that possesses value?
This statement speaks volumes. What Diogenes considers a moral imperative, he thinks should trump one of the basic rights in our Constitution. A little tyranny in the name of one man’s so-called morality.
And here I thought Dio wasn’t a George W. Bush fan…
No contradiction, I just said I wouldn’t oppose giving the survivors some money to shut them up if it would help to save human life. I’m not opposed to not compensating them either. I’m just saying I would concede it to get my hands on the organs.
And G.W. hasn’t advocated abrogating the rights of any heterosexual person, so that’s just fine then?
You’re missing the point, which is this :
Screw your idea of morals. I’ve got my own. So does everybody else. Government has no business imposing anyone’s morals on anybody. Especially in direct violation of the First Amendment. And yes, deciding how I wish to be buried, cremated, or disposed of, according to religious custom, is part and parcel of Freedom of Religion. And even if you stubbornly refuse to accept that, then we default back to the survivor’s rights - it would become the wife, or children, or parents decision as to what to do with the body, according to their religious customs.
Would the pay out be to “shut them up”, or to compensate the person(s) for something being given up?
If it’s just to shut them up, wouldn’t it also follow that you’d be okay with paying people to shut them up, should they complain loud enough?
If it is to compensate the person(s), wouldn’t it also follow that those persons are giving something up and that there is some value in the body?
If you were against the opt out, and against paying the people in any way, and believe that the bodies should be confiscated in the interest of preserving current life, regardless of what the deceased or the deceased’s estate wants, I’d say that would be consistent. I would disagree with that, but it would be consistent.
Let us hypothesize that I belong to a religious order that requires my body be buried intact. We shall call them the Movementarians, as I don’t think we’ve had a Simpsons reference yet in this thread.
I, as a Movementarian, have certain beliefs, and the right to act on those beliefs. Acting on those beliefs, I direct that my body, upon my demise, be buried whole.
If the government stops by five minutes after I flatline, carts up the body and ships it to a dissection plant, they have violated my right to practice my religion. I’m not there anymore, and I certainly can’t sit up and complain, but nevertheless, I had made a specific choice based on my religion and the government is prevented from invalidating that by the First Amendment.
Furthermore - the things I owned in life - including my body - do not automatically become the property of the government. That violates all kinds of property rights. If my remains belong to any living person, it is my next of kin, and for the government to take my body without consent would constitute illegal seizure of property.
Let’s suppose my religion says that when my parents die, I am to bring their corpses to my home, set them up in a charming vignette, and leave them there for two years. As much as I’m going to want to do this, because it’s my religion and what I deeply believe is right, I would not be permitted to out of concern for the health of others. How is prohibiting a religious act because it could harm others any more morally justifiable than requiring an act because it will help others? If we can do the first, why can we not do the second?
I recognize that corpse disposal rituals vary across cultures/religions/etc. However, they’ve all evolved from the general fact that the corpses and living shouldn’t mingle, so we burn or bury our dead. It seems to me that we’ve reached the point, technologically speaking, where the dead are capable of more than rotting and spreading disease, but our superstitions and rituals haven’t caught up yet.
The government can (and does) require autopsies under certain conditions regardless of religious beliefs or family preferences. Samples are kept from autopsies, and are not disposed of with the remainder of the corpse. Would you feel that this is an action of government that violates your belief?
