Organ donation

[The Black Whirlwind]

i think a persons last wishes should be obeyed, as long as they are within reason. If they dont wan to donate their organs, we should respect their wishes. If they want pieces of themselves taken to the ends of the earth, why not? I am torn on what i should do in the event that i die, i want to be burned on a pyre, with all of my pieces so i can return to the Force intact, but saving lives is important as well, so i dont really know...

 

[mr.guy]

Once a person is dead, although they did have rights whilst alive these rights should no longer exist. Therefore, the law should do no more to protect these phantom rights.

This is my bone of contension. There's a little leap you make here (blink and you miss it) that is something of a problem for me. I'm still not completely sure on your view on a 'last will and testement', but this above quote states that they have no validity at all ; thus i'll for the present go with this assumption (sorry if i've pegged you wrong). To state that the dead have no rights of distribution of their estate and property (i consider my body my property) is essentially the meat of this entire debate on enforced organ donation. I propose we focus on this before moving on.

 

[Fluffy]

This is my bone of contension. There's a little leap you make here (blink and you miss it) that is something of a problem for me.

I wanted to try and figure out the leap before I replied. I must be blinking too much, however, because I can't for the life of me see it. Do you mean "these rights should no longer exist"?

I'm still not completely sure on your view on a 'last will and testement', but this above quote states that they have no validity at all ; thus i'll for the present go with this assumption (sorry if i've pegged you wrong).

No you have pegged me right however I find that such a view is not enforceable or at least not fairly so I am quite happy for wills to be respected depending on their content.

To state that the dead have no rights of distribution of their estate and property (i consider my body my property) is essentially the meat of this entire debate on enforced organ donation. I propose we focus on this before moving on.

I agree that your body is your property. However, I do not see how someone who has ceased to exist (going with an atheist view at the moment) can have the ability to own something. Additionally, I do not see a justification for why those related to him should have first dibs on his property. However, I definitely do not believe that the state should own it.

 

[Pussyfoot Mouse]

My Mother was always afraid to be a donor for fear that if we are reincarnated, she may need them. :biglaugh:
But in all seriousness, we had her organs donated, at My Father's request. He too asked that his organs be donated if they could be. He died of Cancer two years after his Wife.

 

[Unedited]

I am strongly against having any of my organs taken and given to someone else, or having anyone else’s organs in my own body.

Does anyone believe organ donation should be mandatory? The reasoning being that a body cannot have rights once dead since the person is no longer in possession of their body.

If that were the case, I would actually seriously consider jumping off a building so that none of my organs were useable. I wouldn’t, but I’d seriously consider it.

Anyway, that's how strongly I'm against it.

 

[Jaymes]

I don't mean to sound patronizing, but I think it's a little different to say that now and to say that when your life is on the line. Would you really rather die than have someone else's heart/liver/lung/etc? The idea of me have ground up bones from someone around my spine's kind of creepy, but nothing worth refusing surgery and letting myself die over.

 

[michel]

I don't mean to sound patronizing, but I think it's a little different to say that now and to say that when your life is on the line. Would you really rather die than have someone else's heart/liver/lung/etc? The idea of me have ground up bones from someone around my spine's kind of creepy, but nothing worth refusing surgery and letting myself die over.

I think you make a good point; no one knows just how they will react under pressure, or need.

As a young man I was terrified of the idea of any operation; hospitals gave me the creeps, and the idea of playing about witth eyes made my stomach heave.
Yet I have had to accept having a new hip, and having the natural lenses taken out of my eyes, and replaced with artificial plastic lenses - I also needed three litres of Blood during the hip op - another thing that used to bother me.

Man, when you are in agony, you 'go with the flow'.....................

 

[Unedited]

I don't mean to sound patronizing, but I think it's a little different to say that now and to say that when your life is on the line. Would you really rather die than have someone else's heart/liver/lung/etc? The idea of me have ground up bones from someone around my spine's kind of creepy, but nothing worth refusing surgery and letting myself die over.

You're right. I don't know exactly how I'll act if the situation comes. In all honesty, I know, when faced with the decision, I would be tempted to take an organ to save myself. But I also know that if I took another's organ, I would be in hell afterwards knowing my decision.

My stand may, and probably will, change with time. There was a time I was strongly against medication that would alter my brain, but now I survive by it. For now though, I still stand strongly against organ donation.

 

[michel]

You're right. I don't know exactly how I'll act if the situation comes. In all honesty, I know, when faced with the decision, I would be tempted to take an organ to save myself. But I also know that if I took another's organ, I would be in hell afterwards knowing my decision.

My stand may, and probably will, change with time. There was a time I was strongly against medication that would alter my brain, but now I survive by it. For now though, I still stand strongly against organ donation.

"But I also know that if I took another's organ, I would be in hell afterwards knowing my decision." - may I ask why you would feel that way?

 

[Ryan2065]

I find that terribly immature- they're DEAD. They don't need to be buried with their organs- or even at all. There are people who are dying because of these selfish views.

Normally the way someone is prepared at death is a sign of religion. And to use logic... You say that if someone dies and they do not want to donate their organs to science they are both immature and selfish. If their religion dictates this, then by your standing the religion is both immature and selfish. This IS an attack on religion because burial rights are mostly dictated by religion.

I don't think it's immature to call them selfish... that's all it is, selfishness. There's no reason to keep organs in a dead person when someone living needs them.

Again, this is an all inclusive statement. You are attacking peoples religious views here. If someone believes that there is a reason to keep their organs in their body, then they get to keep them. That is the law. If you don't like it, go out and educate those people who aren't organ donors.

I don´t think the dead really care what is done to them seeing as they´re dead and all. XP

The necrophiliacs thank you for your support.

I also have a problem with a G-d who would let people die when a simple donation of something the previous owner has and no longer needs could save them. I also don´t understand how many religions- a lot of them much older than modern medicine and organ transplants- could have been against something that didn´t even exist when they were formed.

Yet they are against it. So just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't true. There are religions in this world that believe you need your organs in your body even when you are dead. Would you deny them this right?

You have a right to your beliefs- you don´t have the right to make everyone take you seriously.

I would hope that if someone had a genuine belief you would take them seriously to some degree. Your beliefs might look equall strange to someone of a different faith.

Where did I say that /religious/ belief was immature?

You said that the burial rights of some religions is immature and selfish. Just because you did not use these words doesn't mean it wasn't said.

Does anyone believe organ donation should be mandatory? The reasoning being that a body cannot have rights once dead since the person is no longer in possession of their body.

You body should have rights after you die. We have religious freedom in this country.

If a religion thought that it was right to murder all of a given minority, it is arguable that an allowance should not be made. Some religious people think that, because of their religion, homosexual marriage should be illegal. Where allowance for them should be given is in debate at the moment.

First off if a religion thought it was right to murder is a false statement. This would be a cult and NOT a religion. As far as mandatory organ donations go... This is an example of the state imposing religious views on the living and the dead. How do you think the family of the dead person would feel when they hear his body was harvested for parts and then the family believes he will not get what he deserves in the afterlife? Plus the view that you are dead and do not need your organs IS a religious view and to make a law that you need to donate your organs again would be a religious law and therefor unconstitutional.

Also I don't so much believe that the body belongs to the state. Just that it does not belong to the person that used to inhabit it and that they do not have a right to exert influence over it AFTER death.

You are saying that at least the organs of a dead person belong to the state. You say there should be mandatory organ donation so therefor the organs are the property of the state when one dies. Again, this is a religious law and would be very bad.

I agree that your body is your property. However, I do not see how someone who has ceased to exist (going with an atheist view at the moment) can have the ability to own something. Additionally, I do not see a justification for why those related to him should have first dibs on his property. However, I definitely do not believe that the state should own it.

Even here you admit that you are going with an athiest viewpoint! This shows that the law would be a religious law.


After reading the posts on this thread i have to say... So much for religious tolerance...

 

[michel]

Normally the way someone is prepared at death is a sign of religion. And to use logic... You say that if someone dies and they do not want to donate their organs to science they are both immature and selfish. If their religion dictates this, then by your standing the religion is both immature and selfish. This IS an attack on religion because burial rights are mostly dictated by religion.

Again, this is an all inclusive statement. You are attacking peoples religious views here. If someone believes that there is a reason to keep their organs in their body, then they get to keep them. That is the law. If you don't like it, go out and educate those people who aren't organ donors.

The necrophiliacs thank you for your support.

Yet they are against it. So just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't true. There are religions in this world that believe you need your organs in your body even when you are dead. Would you deny them this right?

I would hope that if someone had a genuine belief you would take them seriously to some degree. Your beliefs might look equall strange to someone of a different faith.

You said that the burial rights of some religions is immature and selfish. Just because you did not use these words doesn't mean it wasn't said.

You body should have rights after you die. We have religious freedom in this country.

First off if a religion thought it was right to murder is a false statement. This would be a cult and NOT a religion. As far as mandatory organ donations go... This is an example of the state imposing religious views on the living and the dead. How do you think the family of the dead person would feel when they hear his body was harvested for parts and then the family believes he will not get what he deserves in the afterlife? Plus the view that you are dead and do not need your organs IS a religious view and to make a law that you need to donate your organs again would be a religious law and therefor unconstitutional.

You are saying that at least the organs of a dead person belong to the state. You say there should be mandatory organ donation so therefor the organs are the property of the state when one dies. Again, this is a religious law and would be very bad.

Even here you admit that you are going with an athiest viewpoint! This shows that the law would be a religious law.


After reading the posts on this thread i have to say... So much for religious tolerance...

I don't understand the point you are making with "So much for religious tolerance.." - unless you mean as in tollerance for other's beliefs by non-mainstream believers; anyway, this thread is not about tollerance, it is just about organ donation.

 

[Jaymes]

I think we're forgetting that 'tolerate' means 'to put up with,' not 'respect.' I'll put up with someone's decision to not donate their organs, but I find it terribly selfish.

 

[Unedited]

"But I also know that if I took another's organ, I would be in hell afterwards knowing my decision." - may I ask why you would feel that way?

It is my belief that, when I die, my body is to be cremated and thrown into a river. It is my belief that, until all parts of my body is dealt with in this manner, my soul will no be free to do as it may and to again be reincarnated. It is my belief that, were I to take someone else's organ, I would be preventing them from 'being free.'

It is also my belief that, damaging the body in such a way could damage my very soul, depending on the organ.

So, were I to take another's organ, I would live with the guilt of harming two souls.

 

[Fluffy]

You body should have rights after you die. We have religious freedom in this country.

And my point is that religious freedom should only be given up to a point otherwise it will become what I call over-tolerance.

First off if a religion thought it was right to murder is a false statement.

No. A hypothetical scenario is bounded by the constraints originally imposed upon it, not by any which passers-by wish to add. I do not consider 16th centure Christianity a cult. Nor do I consider Roman mythology a cult. Yet both murdered minorities for religious reasons. I argue that such religious freedom should not be tolerated.

This is an example of the state imposing religious views on the living and the dead. How do you think the family of the dead person would feel when they hear his body was harvested for parts and then the family believes he will not get what he deserves in the afterlife? Plus the view that you are dead and do not need your organs IS a religious view and to make a law that you need to donate your organs again would be a religious law and therefor unconstitutional.

That is an interesting argument. Which religion believes that donating organs should be mandatory? They would probably feel terrible. Some Christians feel terrible about the fact that gay marriage is on the road to becoming legal in many western countries. What is the difference and why should one be given priviledge over another?

You are saying that at least the organs of a dead person belong to the state. You say there should be mandatory organ donation so therefor the organs are the property of the state when one dies.

I never once stated there should be mandatory organ donation. I posed the question and then got into a related debate.

Even here you admit that you are going with an athiest viewpoint! This shows that the law would be a religious law.

Atheism is not a religion. Furthermore, if state law coincidentally coincides with religious belief, do you believe that the law is wrong since it is promoting a given religion? If so do you believe that murder being illegal is wrong? For example, if state law existed as it is, stating that people do not have to donate if they wish, how is that not a religious law? It backs up Unedited's religious beliefs...

 

[Ryan2065]

And my point is that religious freedom should only be given up to a point otherwise it will become what I call over-tolerance.

Yet the founding fathers stated that NO law should infringe on religious beliefs.

No. A hypothetical scenario is bounded by the constraints originally imposed upon it, not by any which passers-by wish to add. I do not consider 16th centure Christianity a cult. Nor do I consider Roman mythology a cult. Yet both murdered minorities for religious reasons. I argue that such religious freedom should not be tolerated.

Your argument is still flawed. In order for this "religion" to spring up it needs to have many, many followers. Once when it had a certain number of followers, and has met many other restrictions, it is considered a religion. The thing is, if one of these religious members killed another person outside of their religion they would be forcing their religious beliefs on that person, which is illegal. In your hypothetical situation, i feel the law would allow them to kill members of their own religion... thus making the religion have fewer and fewer people, eventually to the point where there is no religion at all. But still, it is a horrible hypothetical situation because in order for that "religion" to spring up you need alot of murders who never get caught (like a few thousand) living in America. Because if they murder and say "oh its just my religion" well it would actually be considered a cult. Please stop using this arugment, it is flawed in many ways.

That is an interesting argument. Which religion believes that donating organs should be mandatory? They would probably feel terrible. Some Christians feel terrible about the fact that gay marriage is on the road to becoming legal in many western countries. What is the difference and why should one be given priviledge over another?

The gay debate is something I should be argueing. You are saying that we should force everyone to be organ donors, thus taking away their right to choose. Gay marriage right now is trying to fight for the right to choose if they want to marry or not. And just because one religion does not hold the view that "everyone" should donate their organs does not mean this law would be religious. If the country decided that everyone should say prayer in the classroom this would most surely be a religious law. There isnt any religion on the planet that says that everyone is required to pray (some do say their memebers are required to pray, but none say that you should go out and force everyone to pray) but somehow i think people would consider it a religion.

I never once stated there should be mandatory organ donation. I posed the question and then got into a related debate.

And I was just debating you on the subject... I was debating this point...

Also I don't so much believe that the body belongs to the state. Just that it does not belong to the person that used to inhabit it and that they do not have a right to exert influence over it AFTER death.

I was point out that although you do not believe the body belongs to the state, if you do believe in mandatory organ donation, then you believe that the organs at least belong to the state.

Atheism is not a religion.

Yes, atheism IS a religion if we just call a religion a perons belief regarding god. But even if you agree that atheism is not a religion, a law stating that "When you die you cease to exist so you no longer need your body" This law agrees with the atheist view point, but also states a clear religious belief.

Furthermore, if state law coincidentally coincides with religious belief, do you believe that the law is wrong since it is promoting a given religion?

Yes if that law forces one religions views on another. Please show me where a valid religion keeps getting members arrested because the law does not allow them to do whatever their religion tells them to do.

If so do you believe that murder being illegal is wrong?

Again, we get to the murder debate. Such a horrible example. Please show me a religion that is currently having members arrested because their religion believes murder is good.

For example, if state law existed as it is, stating that people do not have to donate if they wish, how is that not a religious law? It backs up Unedited's religious beliefs...

Huh? Not in the least! The law states that you have the choice to do as you please in regards to organ donation. I do not see how anyone can think for a moment this is anything like backing up a religion of any kind. A completely absurd statement.

 

[Jaymes]

Yet the founding fathers stated that NO law should infringe on religious beliefs.

If that were the case, female circumcision/stoning people to death would still be legal.

EDIT: What the heck, female circumcision... female genital mutilation. :bonk:

 

[Unedited]

I was thinking about this yesterday...what if to be eligible to receive organs, you had to be willing to donate your organs. Does anyone think that would motivate people to be organ donars? Or would they still just say 'no' until the time came when they needed an organ?

 

[Ryan2065]

If that were the case, female circumcision/stoning people to death would still be legal.

What religion (hint: in america) believes that you should stone someone to death for something. Please tell me the religion and show me the numbers that shows this religion has enough members in america for it to be considered a vaild religion in america. The same with female genital mutilation (though I was really unaware that if the female was willing that there was a law stating that they were not allowed to do the genital mutilation)

 

[jamaesi]

Normally the way someone is prepared at death is a sign of religion. And to use logic... You say that if someone dies and they do not want to donate their organs to science they are both immature and selfish. If their religion dictates this, then by your standing the religion is both immature and selfish. This IS an attack on religion because burial rights are mostly dictated by religion.

Again, this is an all inclusive statement. You are attacking peoples religious views here. If someone believes that there is a reason to keep their organs in their body, then they get to keep them. That is the law. If you don't like it, go out and educate those people who aren't organ donors.

The necrophiliacs thank you for your support.

Yet they are against it. So just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't true. There are religions in this world that believe you need your organs in your body even when you are dead. Would you deny them this right?

I would hope that if someone had a genuine belief you would take them seriously to some degree. Your beliefs might look equall strange to someone of a different faith.

You said that the burial rights of some religions is immature and selfish. Just because you did not use these words doesn't mean it wasn't said.


After reading the posts on this thread i have to say... So much for religious tolerance...

Attacking religion would be saying I think that it should be banned and that all the followers are dummyheads- or did I say that without saying that since I seem to say things without saying.

Nice throwing necrophilia into.. a topic not on necrophilia. Hmm. If you want to debate that, do start up another thread.

I think it would be nice if all people would donate their organs and I think it's selfish for people to not to- but I'm not running around trying to make this law because I know not everyone would agree. I might wish for it sometimes, but I know it's not practical.

We have religious freedom in this country.

We also have free speech.

 

[jamaesi]

What religion (hint: in america) believes that you should stone someone to death for something. Please tell me the religion and show me the numbers that shows this religion has enough members in america for it to be considered a vaild religion in america. The same with female genital mutilation (though I was really unaware that if the female was willing that there was a law stating that they were not allowed to do the genital mutilation)

Stoning
http://www.free-minds.org/bible.htm

Numbers
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm



Anything else?