While you’re not willing to fight the fires yourself, you are still contributing to the firefighting system through your taxes and the infrastructure your taxes provide. You DO have stock in the firefighting system.
I think you should be able to sell the rights to them after you’re dead, too. Hell, you could probably set up an organ future’s market or something where if you promised to donate organs upon death you could get a monthly paycheck until then. With a big bonus if you donated a kidney or something while still alive. Some actuary would have to figure out the over/under, but half the people in that type of system would be getting a good deal, similar to insurance. And sure as shit everybody would sign up for that system, I know I would. That’s free money, because I don’t feel the costs until after I’m dead. And if I ever hit a bad spot in life and need a windfall, I’ll just donate a kidney. I just don’t see why organs are so sacred we’re not allowed to buy or sell them, that’s all. They have value, why should we pretend they’re only good enough to give away?
And I apologize for the lack of respect statement. It’s my own peculiar view that the ultimate disrespect is to make decisions for other people about their own life, I recognize that not all people feel that way. And I still don’t know where you’re getting the idea that we’ll farm kids for organs. That’s like saying human cloning inevitably leads to farming clones for organs. It just isn’t true. Changing the rules doesn’t change the fact that people are still people.
Apology accepted.
My point about kids being farmed for organs is only valid if organs can be sold while the owner is still alive. Selling organs after death, where the organs go to the heirs or estate of the, ahem, original owner, I don’t have a problem with. If I could sell my body and have the money go to my family, I’d be all over that idea.
Selling organs *before *death is, I think, a massively bad idea, for the reasons I stated.
Sorry, you’re right, I didn’t see that part.
I feel that the poor should be able to sell their organs while alive though. Sure it may be gruesome, and rich people won’t have to do it, but rich people won’t have to dig ditches or pick up shit either. My views on the control of my own body outweigh my fears that this would be discrimminating to the poor.
I think the only reason we don’t do it is not the risk of death or suffering, but that we can’t put a price on it. If a poor person wanted to donate all of his money to charity, or gamble it all away, he’d be allowed to. But money is easily measured, and its worth easily calculated. If he lost $10000, he’d have to get $10000 back to cover it. With an organ, its different because there’s so much else you’d have to factor in. Lower life expectancy, health issues, pain, surgical complications, things like that are unknown. Thus we cannot ever feel comfortable that the poor person selling the organ is getting what the organ is worth. Would we feel the same tinge of guilt if a poor person gave his money to a rich person, or gave away a prized family heirloom even?
I think the poor should be able to sell their organs, not directly to another buyer, but to a government organ bank, who set the prices and regulates who gets to buy an organ. That would seem more fair, and would not guarantee that someone could fleece a poor person for his organ
You could have just said that you didn’t feel like having a real discussion.
OK, let’s talk. If I donate a kidney, but the recipient can’t afford the surgery, is the docter responsible if they die, just because he won’t do it for free? I am not responsible for patients who die because I won’t give them my organs.
Customs, cultural heritage, religion… it all gets a bit murky. Based on demographics here I’d suggest that most Maori who don’t support post-death organ donation would be at least nominally Christian. A good distinction there though Backcountry Medic: “post-death organ donation” – living organ donation (e.g. donating a kidney) doesn’t seem to raise the same objections.
I am not Maori or know much about the area, but from reading the objections/concerns raised in parliament by the Maori Party politicians to the organ donation Act it appears to be a two-fold problem, partly as you say all of the dead person should be returned to the earth (although interestingly this doesn’t seem to prevent support of live organ donation), and partly a strong taboo between crossing the boundaries between the realms of the living and the dead by transplanting from a dead body to a live one.
This, contrasted with the cultural taboo is what seems to add nuance to the Maori case… and the two Maori Party speeches I read were much less of “zomg, you can’t do this!” and much more “this is a cultural minefield and we need to tread very carefully”.
Actually, I thought that was the default at this point in the organ donation legal world. To my knowledge, you can SAY you want to be an organ donor, and you can even fill out the driver’s license stuff, but your family can refuse to give it up and do whatever they want to do with your body, regardless of what your Big Plan may have been.
Are you sure about that? There’s a whole host of reasons why a person would be forbidden to donate blood, regardless of how willing they might otherwise be to open up a vein for the common good. Seems pretty unfair to kick someone to the bottom of the queue just because they used bovine insulin since 1980, or had gay sex once since 1977.
Exactly. But they tell us that, or at least once did. I always found the whole thing a bit uncomforatable, for the reasons you give, and more besides. The reason I relate it, is to juxtapose the notion against the similar idea suggested here about organ donation. However, to check, I just spend some time going over their web site, and there is no trace of the policy. I assume they decided that, indeed, it simply wasn’t ethically defensible. It probably became untenable after more and more exclusions from donation came in. Like living in the UK for more than six months between 1980 and 1996.
It appears like you are saying that you still would have a option to opt out, though the default is for forced donation. That is different then saying that you have to and have no choice what so ever.
IMHO as a society we don’t understand what life and death really is, and there is the problem. Some may believe that how a body is treated in death has to do with how that person is in the afterlife. As such you are mandating a state sponsored belief system. Yes to some extent that is already done as certain spiritual practices are banned already, such as mind altering substances that Native Americans have used long before ‘white man’ walked on the new world, but just saying this would be a further erosion of ‘spiritual rights’.
If it were a one-time thing requested of the surgeon that in no way interfered with the surgeon’s life, then yes. I’d think the doctor was a shit.
But it wouldn’t be a one-time thing for the surgeon, a one-and-only request of resources that have no other value and no other cost.
A better analogy is me throwing something I don’t need or want and can’t sell in the garbage, the trash guys haul it off, then someone picks through the garbage at the dump and can use the item. Refusing to throw the item in the garbage because the trash guys get paid to haul it away and someone at the other end can use it would be extremely odd. It’s dog in the mangerism taken to an extreme that, frankly, perplexes me.
There are people in this world who can see and who can walk because I gave them, through proxies, some bits and pieces of my husband before I, in effect, threw him out. Of course someone in the middle gets money. If they didn’t, it wouldn’t get done. No one could afford to care for organs and tissues for free. They cost resources just to keep them usable. A rotten organ does no one any good. They are going to require refrigeration, transportation, testing, typing, a paper trail, surgical procedures at both ends, safety, medical histories, everything. Of course it costs money. I’m sure it costs a huge amount of money.
I spent hours on the phone with a woman giving her my husband’s entire medical history, his parents’ medical history, MY medical history, so that they could take these pieces that my husband didn’t need and I didn’t want and put them in other people’s bodies. She needs to be paid. This is her job, the thing she does that puts food on the table. Sure, she could do it once, or occasionally, and not get paid. We can all do things once or occasionally, but most of us can’t afford to do something full-time for which we don’t get paid. We gotta live. Of course they get paid.
But you know who didn’t need to be paid? My husband. The one thing he no longer had to worry about was living. They took what they could and burned the rest. And the people doing the burning got paid. And the people creating the death certificates and the lawyers and the bankers and the customer service at Netflix who took my call about his account and the Social Security employees who handled the $255 dollars I got–see, I got paid, too–got paid.
Death is expensive. Organ donation is one of the only ways to make it worth it, even a little bit worth it.
I don’t see why that would make one bit of difference in your morality. If people die because they can’t afford a doctor’s fee, what possible difference does it make if the doctor refuses to treat all poor patients for free? Are the others any less dead?
Wow, I think the conversation just got a little bit scarier. If I want to declare bankruptcy but I have two kidneys still does that have to be taken into account? If I am behind on my taxes will the IRS organ agents come and collect?
Okay.
I find this debate interesting because it reveals underlying beliefs about how we think. Are the things in society individually owned and the rights of individuals sacrosanct? Or is everything communally owned and each person “given” what they need by a benevolent central government.
I am an organ donor. Whether I go to heaven, hell, or become worm food, I know that I won’t need my organs, so if they can help someone else out, then that is great. But, I can’t imagine that being the default position. They are mine. They are not owned by society.
The concept of ownership is nothing more than an agreed set of rules your society upholds. If you have any hope of defending your “ownership” it is society that provides that “right”. If society redefines the rules of ownership, ownership changes. The nature of your rights of ownership change with the changed rules. Your ownership however does not change. We are not humans in isolation. Every right any human declares only exists in society. When the lizard alliance come to harvest your body to feed their brood, you have exactly zero rights, and certainly no property.
The whole purpose of society is for people to band together to protect their rights against the “nasty, solitary, brutish and short” way of living ‘naturally’. Rights are something we have, not something we are given. The only question is whether everybody else agrees to pitch in and help protect those rights or whether you have to protect them on your own.
I’ll admit, property rights are a little different, since they’re not ‘natural’ rights but more like ‘necessary’ rights. Property helps us guard against the tragedy of the commons by giving us each an semi-isolated sphere of responsibility and reward. Things tend to work out best when people feel all the consequences and rewards of their own actions while avoiding spilling over costs onto their neighbors (like what happens in a commons).
Ethically, I’m a utilitarian; I want to maximize human happiness for the greatest number. But I’m not presumptuous enough to think I know what would make everyone happy. Therefore I think we should give people the autonomy and freedom to forge their own path to happiness, and I think this would promote the greatest good.
Long story short, property has no meaning if my body doesn’t count. Property rights are necessitated by (if not others’, at least my own) ethical foundation. In order to maximize happiness, then, we should allow people freedom to pursue their own happiness on their own terms, including selling their bodies (at whatever price suits them) or refusing to allow people to use their organs at all.
I would disagree. I take the Jeffersonian view of rights in that they are granted to me by my Creator, and that the only purpose of society is to protect these rights. Should a society become destructive to this end, it is the right and duty of people to change that society and replace it with one suited for the job.
Or rights are sacrosanct, but dead people don’t have them except in Chicago.
How about this thought experiment: Say that every doctor and every hospital and every medical anything in the country put it as part of their terms of service that they consider organ donation the default and they will go ahead with it unless someone explicitly opts out.
So, not a law, just individuals and businesses establishing their own code.
Fine with that?