I presume you have a need for those organs right now. Will that be the case when you’re in the ground?
People are dying for want of them, nonetheless.
If the price isn’t high enough, don’t sell. That’s how it works when we let people make their own decisions. Presumably it’s “tons of cash” to whoever thinks it’s worth giving up organs for. Maybe not tons of cash to you or me, but they aren’t our organs. Either way, it’s more than what they’re getting now, which is nothing.
Seems like a consistent view for people to say that one person should keep his hands off another’s body. Don’t harvest my organs without my permission, and don’t abort a child without his.
Interesting how the terms pro-life and pro-choice fit in this situation as well, but likely with mostly opposite supporters.
I don’t have time to research it right now, but yes - I do believe that this is the belief in Islam - perhaps somebody more knowledgeable could confirm it.
scatching head - it may also be a Maori belief - I will need to reasearch that one myself…unless Maple Kiwi or Apollyon have somebody nearby they can ask???
This thread has brought up a tangential and unlikely, but somewhat interesting (to me) question: suppose scientists find some vast medical breakthrough or huge new drug based on a person’s DNA. Does that person have any rights to any part of the profits the way laws are set up now? What about under the “after you’re dead, you have no right to your body” regime?
Some Maori, yes, and some Pacific Islanders / Polynesians too have similar beliefs (err… which and who I’m not sure).
These beliefs are something that health care workers try to take into account. For example, (from a health care guide (pdf) by one of the district health boards):
By the same token any parts of the body taken in surgery, or even cut hair may be offered back to the patient. Of course, not every Maori or Polynesian person cares about this – they may even be the minority. I recall a Polynesian woman in the maternity bed adjacent ot my wife’s being offered some hair back by a nurse (cleaned from her brush I think) and just looking rather surprised and asking “why would i want that back?” 
An interesting comparison comes from blood donations. This was touched on earlier, but it is worthwhile looking at different countries.
Here in Oz, we donate blood for free. It is illegal to sell your blood. As a blood donor, I get a free drink and nibble after I donate. However, interestingly, a donor is also supposedly given priority over a non-donor if blood stocks are limited. I have no idea if this priority has ever been tested, but it is there.
A colleage spent some time in India. There they have an interesting system. (At least the province he was in did.) There you are entitled to 2 units of blood. After that you must pay for it. In blood. This can mean that you get all your mates in to donate blood, to buy you blood. You may also go into credit by donating, and you may also trade in the credits gained by your mates if they donated earlier. But overall the principle is clear.
However, as you might expect, the system becomes debased as the poor hang around the hospitals, and for a cash consideration, will cheerfully donate on your behalf.
Shoot… if my dad died, and I knew he was not an organ donor, I’d still say he was. I can’t see why people hold such attachment to their meat when they are dead… Do with me what you will. I don’t care. I am dead.
So I’d be perfectly fine with an opt out program.
I’d go even further… If the person opts in, and its on the drivers license or in the medical history, then thats it. Organ donor. Family can’t do anything.
In situations with no info, assumed organ donor unless the family nixes it.
Opt out, no organ donor, period.
It bothers me that you think it’s fine to exploit the poor for their organs. In my mind, there’s a difference between exploiting their work and harvesting their organs. When you’re poor, you don’t always get the luxury of making good long-term decisions. I refer to to the Samuel Vimes ‘Boots’ Theory Of Socio-Economic Injustice, of course.
However, I also noticed that you completely ignored the other situation I posited, wherein children will be raised strictly for the purposes of selling their organs. Is this something you’re okay with?
I didn’t know it was a Maori custom, but I knew that certain religions have some beliefs that forbid (is that too strong?)-don’t encourage- post-death organ donation. Honestly I’m not sure of their rationale, but I’m guessing it has something to do with not mutilating bodies of the dead or preserving the wholeness of a person for their entry into heaven. Some of the religions have kinda swept it under the carpet and read more into the spirit of the law rather than the letter and said it was still okay with god. Someone brought this up earlier.
However a common critique of opt-out donation, even a couple of times in this thread, is that some people can’t or won’t donate for religious reasons, and to ‘make’ them do it is religious discrimination. I was wondering how many of these people there actually are, and if anyone out there wouldn’t donate for a religious reason. Honestly, it seems like the majority of the people in this thread will or would donate, but the few naysayers complaints really seem to be based on selfishness- either “I would rather have my organs rot in my body after death than allow the government to tell me what to do” or “If someone else wants something that is mine, even if I’m dead, I should have the property rights to sell it”- type of arguments.
I was hoping to hear from someone who wouldn’t donate on religious reasons give us their take on it, especially answering questions about whether they would take a post-mortem organ in a transplant and what logic they use to refuse donation. It seems to me that most religions praise altruism, and I just can’t see something more contrary to that than steadfastly holding onto something you don’t need and can’t use when it has the potential to save several lives, without needing a the donor to do so much as lift a finger.
A) Exploitation is when you take from somebody for your own benefit at their expense. Kind of like demanding that the poor automatically give their organs away for free as the default.
Allowing someone to negotiate a fair price for their organs is the exact opposite of that. Organs won’t be sold unless the price is fair, everybody makes their own decisions about their bodies and we treat people as autonomous adults instead of some sort of national organ crop to be farmed and harvested at the government’s will.
B) I don’t see how you can think that children will be raised as organ farms. That’s ridiculous over the top strawman stuff, which is why I ignored it.
I didn’t say anything about children for one thing. If you can’t consent to have sex, I don’t think you can consent to the sale of your organs, no matter how poor mommy is. Furthermore, children cost money to raise and keep. We currently can legally sell our hair to wigmakers. Are children being exploited and grown as hair farms currently? Are the poor just popping out oodles of kids so that rich people can have nice wigs?
And once again you sidestep the issue that the poor don’t have a lot of negotiation power. It’s pretty simple- if organs can be sold, there will be more organs for sale. Good so far. The only problem is that more organs= lower payment for those organs… so the price goes down. I’d be willing to sell a liver for $100k… but I won’t do it for $100. However, people near the poverty level will. End result- the rich living off of the poor.
Hair doesn’t sell for as much as organs. And you’re completely ignoring one issue- minors can’t consent to organ donation in America. When countries go into an industrial revolution, the birthrate skyrockets- because more children= more workers= more money for the family. This has happened multiple times throughout history. Bring in the ability for people to make money off of organ donation, and I guarantee you that we’ll see kids raised for the purpose of selling organs. It is by no means a strawman.
And, now that I think about it, we’d also start seeing organ-donation-related kidnappings.
I will be donating my organs, but I think it should be opt-in, for both moral and practical reasons. On moral grounds, it seems that a person should have the final say in what happens to the body who carried him through life and the default position is to take your organs with you. The practical problems have been alluded to, but I can see doctors/hospitals acting before they determine what someone’s wishes were. and I can see this effecting the poor more than the wealthy, who is more likely to have a will, etc.
So because you personally don’t approve of the price someone is willing to take for their own damn organs, it’s exploitation? If I freely choose to work a minimum wage job, I’m being exploited? Am I exploiting the grocery store every time I buy something on sale? It’s like all of economics is equivalent to exploitation.
Free transactions are not a zero sum game. We can both benefit. It works with candy bars (that candy bar is worth more to me than this dollar <–> That dollar is worth more to me than this candy bar) and it will work with organs. If you don’t think that candy bar is worth a dollar, don’t buy it. If you don’t think $100 is worth giving up your kidney, don’t sell it. Yes, $100 is more enticing to the poor than the rich. So what?
Are you saying it is better to be poor and keep your organs than to help other people and get a few bucks in the process? That may be so for you, but I don’t see how you can make that decision for everyone else on earth.
We already have a black market for organs. Black markets breed crime, like say kidnapping. Make the organ trade legal, bring it into the open where we can keep our eyes on it and regulate, chances are it will be safer. Same story with drugs.
And frankly – I’m going to get flamed for this – I’m not necessarily against child labor, either. Parents have their children’s best interests at heart, not the government – in Dickens’ England and in modern developing nations we see that parents take their kids out of the workforce as soon as they are financially able to. In our country, no one is poor enough for it to be a good decision so we outlawed child labor in our distaste. But for the truly poor, sending their children to work is one of the few ways to put food in their kid’s bellies. Refusing to let them work is basically saying that we know what is better for their families than they do and they should starve to keep from offending our sensibilities.
It’s straight up lack of respect for the poor, which is what I’m seeing in this thread about organs. Who cares what would benefit the poor and the sick the most? Obviously, poor people can’t make any smart decisions anyway, so let’s make their decisions for them. Capitalism is exploitive and should be avoided at all costs!
I’m amazed, frankly, that your takeaway from what I (and others) have said in this thread is that we don’t have any respect for the poor.
I apparently respect them so little that I don’t want them to be farmed for their organs. Yeah, that works.
I’d use the rolleyes smiley, but I don’t think even that would get across my level of astonishment at just how far you had to leap to get to that logic.
I agree with this. After you’re dead, that’s it. I dont believe in an afterlife and until someone can prove it, we should treat death as the cessation of all life and cognition.
The poor are not being farmed for their organs, for those who raised the objection. The **DEAD **are being farmed for it. A corpse that was formerly rich would have just as might right to have their organs harvested as a corpse that was poor.
Who knows? Maybe this policy would actually spur universal health care as people would be motivated during life to make sure that every can afford to leave their corpse in a state in which they want to
It’s not hypocrisy because hypocrisy is not defined as taking advantage of a system into which you have put no stock.
I am unwilling to put my life on the line to fight fires. Does that mean I’m a hypocrite when I expect a firefighter to do his or her job?
I get the feeling that it’s somehow unjust or unfair, but it is not hypocrisy. What is hypocritical about the statement, “When I die, it is important to me that my body remain in one piece because of my beliefs about the afterlife, or maybe the idea of my person becoming a commodity is scary and off-putting. However, other people are free to make the choice to become organ donors, and I certainly don’t have a problem with being a recipient of an organ from someone who is willing to give one.”?
Maybe illogical, maybe selfish, but not hypocritical.
I think you misunderstand the argument that **DrCube **and I are having. He thinks that we should be able to sell organs while alive, and I maintain that this would just lead to the poor being farmed for their organs (since the wealthy won’t sell their organs). I think this is reprehensible.