No blocking organ donations

BTA said:

Um, okay...I really am surprised at this. I've had more respect for you than to fall into a faulty conclusion like this.

Organ donation doesn't mean a donor will die BECAUSE they are a donor. It means if they die, and any organs are still viable after death, they put these to use.

The death happens anyway whether someone is a donor or not. If the donor doesn't die, the organs don't get taken. I'm a donor, but if I live to my 90's, I'm doubtful there'd be anything useful left in my then-unused corpse when I pass on of 'natual causes'.

And if anyone's going to advance the claim that EMS 'drags their feet' if they discover someone is an organ donor, please wait until I get a chance to make a new foil skullcap - I think the Illuminati are beginning to hear my thoughts broadcast from the implant they gave me when I got my vaccination booster in school, and we don't want to be shipped off by MiB's in black helicopters off to Area-51 for re-education and more implants, do we?


But here's a snappy (and somewhat silly) slogan to plug Organ Donation:

(c'mon, LAUGH, people - it's getting WAAAY too adversarial in here )

 

The difference between not donating your organs and not financing the efforts to prevent world hunger is that donating an organ costs you nothing, yet even then people still don't do it - and in my opinion it's just like kicking a baby. "I could save a life at no cost, effort or even discomfort to myself, but I'm not going to do it anyway." that is the mindset we have to deal with. There is an organ SHORTAGE so its obvious more people could be saved if more people donated. The more people we stop preventing organs from being donated the more organs are donated, the more organs that are donated the more lives that are saved.

To being against this bill is to be against the wishes of the deceased and to be against saving lives. I can understand the pro-life debate against the pro-choice on abortion but I can't understand how somebody could be no-choice and no-life at the same time.

Untimely death? I don't understand. Signing an organ doner card doesn't mean some mad doctor is going to break through your front door wielding a bone-saw and try to harvest your organs. It also means that if you're on life support that the doctors can just pull the plug if you've written in your will and testament that you don't want that to happen. As for it costing the Human race something, the only thing more valuable than a human life is TWO human lives. The cost:benefit ratio here is I would dare say one to a million. If people can't even put the least amount of effort into saving somebody else's life by doing the one thing that EVERYBODY ON THE PLANET will eventually do: die, then you know there must be something seriously wrong with our so called humanitarian values.

Organ donation is one of the few circumstances you can save a life with only minor effort on your part, and it often just involves ticking a box on your drivers liscence.

As for the part on saving somebody's life not being a good thing I take it you're implying there's a chance the person you save could turn into Hitler II? Well if that's the case all doctors, aid workers, firemen... hell... anyone who even attempts to save a life should just not bother because that life you just saved could turn into the next Hannibal or Spawn of Satan... and we can't risk saving one life for that now can we because the chances are SO high.

 

BTA:

Just thought I'd repeat this, since you obviously didn't see it the first time.

And Sho, though what you're saying has some semblence of logic behind it, it's also an incredibly slippery slope. So, we should make sure people who have genetic disorders do not breed, and actually refuse them medical treatment; but where do you draw the line? How do you decide which disorders to not treat and which ones you should?

 

BTA, what do you mean by "untimely death"?

I choose to be a donor and find the possibility of anybody usurping my will on such a personal matter to be completely unacceptable.

The same goes for those who choose not to donate organs...Soshino, do you think that your decision to not donate organs should be respected by those around you? If yes, then don't you think the wishes of anyone who chooses to be a donor should also be respected? It works both ways.

 

never said that, theres a huge difference between granting treatment and using extrodinary means to save their life, ive also never said that we should make sure these people cannot breed, thats all left to nature and chance.

on my medical records i have a small document signed: No extrodinary measures are to be taken to preserve the life of: (insert my name here)

it then goes into clarification of extrodinary measures summing up into:

do not resuscitate
refusal of blood transfusions
no surgical measures to be taken

these are what i consider to be extreme measures - any other treatment is fine.

there is a distinct difference between stopping someone from doing something and forcing them to do it, someone could be intent on jumping off a cliff, if i stopped them i would be praised but if i forced someone off a cliff i would be a criminal.

i greatly dispute this

in the case of the UK, it did cost you something, and it cose your relatives and friends something too, thats what happens everytime the government wastes money.

wanted to add this:

organ donations are down for other reasons.

i am, the money could be spend so much better, every organ which is donated has to be monitired costing £46,000 over five years for 1 kidney, i dont have any facts for hearts.

The oldest recorded recipient of an organ in the UK was an 81-year-old kidney patient
she died 3 years later.

 

How did they pull THAT off? I mean, how the heck does someone who is 81 years old even get on a transplant list? Unless it's something like they get a kidney and the tissue is incompatible with everyone else on the list, how do you give that kidney to someone who is 81?

Not that I have anything against the elderly. My 86 year old grandmother is currently terminally ill, and I certainly support any care and comfort that can be provided to her for the few remaining days/weeks she has left. My point simply is that elderly people have other things that can go wrong with them, making most of them unsuitable for an organ transplant. When you're in your 80s, you are already on borrowed time, and even if your transplant goes perfectly, there's a pretty good chance that something else is going to get you in the not-so-distant future - as happened with this woman.

I don't think any "transplant list" should be set in stone, and you simply go down the list until you find the first compatible person. Priority should be given to people who still have a lot of life potentially in front of them, and those who are in the most desperate need.

 

Okay, granted people against 'the weak' breeding and 'lessening the human species', have an opinion, and have every right to that opinion.

But by the same virtue, I am EQUALLY entitled to the opinion to call this sort of belief callous, cold, counter to the principles of human civilisation and - bluntly - INHUMAN.

I don't have any right to prevent an unpleasant opinion from being expressed (and indeed, would never want to do so - I wanna KNOW about this sorta stuff ) but

Now I'm going to take on the 'eugenic/evolutionary darwinistic' argument that poked its head in here earlier:

Shoshino said:

Um, and we've been defying Nature for upwards of thirty millenia now; ever since we started hunting with pointed sticks and heavy rocks. Our tool-using abilities surplanted evolution. By that I mean the continued improvement of those tools and passing of 'ability' (aka technological advantage) by means other than genetics - i.e. verbal communication, written knowledge. We've stopped playing the Natural Selection game for at least as long as recorded history (partially because of *recorded history* ).

For example, we don't make a good hunter by breeding faster and stronger people anymore; we make a good hunter by giving someone a gun, then training verbally and by visual demonstration and reading printed material on the efficient use of that gun.

If you're really into Natural Selection, you should essentially cast aside civilisation: stop being a 'parasite' in your cities with your processed food, and manufactured shelter, and artifical technologically-created light and heat, and go out and prove your genes' worth to Mother Nature on their own merits.

...that is, if you can bring yourself to eat and ingest the organs of another (formerly) living thing, so that you can survive long enough to breed.

----
Shoshino also said:

...unless the horse could be a stud/brood mare, having proven the worth of its genes by wining many races previously, or even been proven to be a strong and capable working horse.

First, the line has been drawn, and it gets re-drawn constantly since Mother Nature doesn't remain static.

Second, the hypothesis that 'super bugs' exist simply because of the use of medicine and antibiotics (which, might I add, are frequently drawn from natural sources with very little 'mad scientist meddling') is fallacious.

It is the misuse of antibiotics (namely only taking same until symptoms disappear, instead of finishing off the perscription to ensure the malevolent organism is eradicated fully) that is permitting these bacteria to be exposed to insufficient doses of our bug-killers, and surviving to pass on this ability by way of further generations of the antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Note that this doesn't happen in one generation (either of the parasite, or the host) - evolution is gradual and it's taken decades of sloppy self-dosing for this set of circumstances to come about.

Third, if 'bugs' (I assume bacteria) are so superior to us, why do we even bother; why not just lay down and die?

Perhaps because this is a competition (human 'race'? ) Perhaps our efforts force other organisms to improve *their* makeup?

-----

Shoshino said as well:

Um, actually that first bit isn't 'eugenics' in a be-all and end-all way; any more than saying that all gun owners are anti-government secessionists or all unmarried women are lesbians.

The OED defines eugenics thusly:

(Citation can be found here )

That can be narrowed to the specific 'controlled breeding' of ethnic clensing, but it can also be simply taking a crop of peas and not planting any that come out of the pod wrinkled or yellow, so that only smooth and green peas provide the genetic stock for the next generation.

From your statement "letting the sick and weak die so that they never breed" - the 'controlled breeding' is quite evident - it's by inaction, even - and the 'desirable heritable characteristics' are implicit, but I hope I've interpreted them correctly in {to improve the species by having healthy bodies that do not fail when confronted with what those died were}.

...um, but wait - doesn't improving homo sapiens sapiens in such a way run counter to your statement:

"i dont believe that mankind is a higher life form to which all efforts should be taken to save"

Maybe I did misinterpret; please confirm or refute.


-------

So you cast aside the pegleg if a car accident sheers your original one off at the knee, and also give up a cane/crutches/wheelchair? Interesting.

I actually respect you a little more for holding yourself to the same rule you feel should be imposed on everyone else. I still disagree with this whole argument.

To claim that we should let 'evolution' decide who lives and dies is counter to the fundemental basis of CIVILISATION: humans help each other to survive and succeed. Ever since we started organizing ourselves and communicating (especially beyond generations via oral and written histories) we cast aside evolution as a means of improving our species. The human railway doesn't go through NaturalSelectionVille anymore.


And here's a little situation to think about:

A colony has been estabilished somewhere (maybe a remote island on Earth, maybe on a planet elsewhere - it's a hypothetical situation, okay? ) One of the colonists has maybe a religious practice of refusing secular medical treatment. And this person is critically injured in an accident. This person wishes to succumb to the injuries, rather than undergo surgery, recover with absolute certainty, and likely survive with some subsequent discomfort/pain from scars/damage/etc.

The reasonable thing to do (even to me) would be to respect this person's wishes and let them go.

But...

...what if the injured person is the only one with skills vital for the survival of everyone in the colony - only technician that can maintain the water-purifcation equipment, or only farmer (again, silly to only have one, but again, it's hypothetical). So respecting the wishes of this person would condemn everyone else in the colony to an inevitable death (no chance of replacement equipment/staff from the outside world).

Now what would people choose?

Discuss.

 

Agreed - where do you draw the line as to what is natural and what is not? But Soshino claims that he doesn't even get a cast when breaks an arm so maybe he does practise what he preaches. Except for the PC he clearly uses.

 

Speaking of that, did anyone ever watch that skit in Monty Python's The Meaning of Life? Funny stuff.

 

I did, Saber, it's what inspired the comment

 

it is in our nature to create basic tools to survive, thats why we dont have claws and decent teeth.

and look wheare its gotten us, this plante couldnt be in a worse condition.

civilisation has got nothing to do with the production of food.

it is a word given to the social development of mankind.
and going back to the processed foods thing - dont eat that crap.

been and done that as part of basic training, eating insects learning about what fungi is edible and making soup from weeds..

never heared of a horse having an organ transplant.

i didnt say nature has to draw the line, i said we have to draw the line.

is it? you post no facts.

once again, your opinion, no facts.

my point

cambridge give a better difinition:

eugenics only applies to humans and it implies forced control over those who breed.

i love how you try to manipulate your way around my meanings:

inaction is not controlled breeding, its natural selection.

nope, nothing spectacular has helped these people to live, their existence was complately natural.

i would never allow that operation to take place in the first place, and would kill myself if they did so against my wishes.

LMAO, do we?
you want to take a long look at civilisation if you think it has anything to do with helping others to survive.

no... it runs through "you cant afford treatment" and "you pray to a different invisible man to me" ville now.

then the colony should die for its shortsightedness, if you did save this person against his wishes to do his job (slavery) what makes you think he would willingly help the colony?, if it were me i would commit suicide i could not live with changes made to my body.
and not only that, there may be a part which would want me to go oin a homicidal rampage first because these people would make me live for their own desires.

 

Where? How? Do you only eat food you have hunted yourself with your bare hands (no using those horribly unnatural spears, nets, and supermarket butchers)?

 

do you see me with claws and a superior sense of smell, nope, i never developed anything like that, because i was born in a community which has been relying on what has been given to them for to long, african and australian tribes can hunt with basic tools, i cant..

and i resent society for making me as physically pathetic as i am

 

Sho, why are you using a computer then? You should be delivering these messages to us personally by swimming across the English channel, running across Europe and Asia then island hopping across the Indonesian isles, trekking across Australia then finally swimming across the Tasman Sea to tell HB your opinions on the matter.

Fact is by arguing you're showing a way that you are superior to animals since they simply don't have the advanced brain functions that we possess. Sure, physically they are superior to us in many ways however the human race is pretty much the only species of creature that could possibly possess the means to exterminate another species of animal on this planet.

 

Why don't you go and live in the jungle then? Like Tarzan? If you get hungry or wet or scratched by thorns, it will be nature's way, so it will be OK. Survival of the fittest and all that. The human race isn't going to toughen up by having you lazing around on your computer in your insulated house.

 

(psst? mind if I abbreviate your name to 'Sho'? I'm lazy )

Okay, so where do YOU draw the line between 'basic tools' being 'natural' and things we do not being natural?

(Tangent: IMO 'natural' is a moot word; ARSENIC is natural, LEAD is natural, and plenty of viruses are natural, but I'm sure vegans would raise a legal firestorm if they found any of these in their food. )

 

damn, you can post

do you think weve lost sight of what this dabate was about? im starting to feel like im more arguing my views on humanity as a whole now rather then about some simple legislation - and most people dont like my views on humanity, and to be frank i dont like who i become when im arguing that.

sio i respectfully bow out of this debate.

oih yes, i fully agree. it seems that most people like to argue their opinions as if they are right and the other is wrong, its important to understand that everything posted in a debate is are people's opinions

 

*blush* Um, more like I can waffle on for ages - this is what happens when I get up on my day off an hour before my wife.

*me shades eyes and stares four pages back at the beginning of the thread* Oh....yeah.

Heh, I'd think so. It was about forming one unified world currency, right?

Well, your views are uncommon (at least among the vocal Alley residents here), and to some, unpleasant. Admittedly, I do disagree with some of what you extol, but I do respect it as having a rational (if a little cold) basis.

As for 'raising your hackles' I do have to apologise for contributing in pushing into that place with my part of the debate.

Well, I must let you know that you've had a resolute and respectable - and also quite valuable - part in this discussion. It's interactions like these that help people clarify and develop their views. I, for one, found I had to think seriously about my beliefs and opinions on these subjects before I could write up a post. I'm hoping that, despite the aggrivation you likely incurred, all this helped you in that respect as well.

Kind of an 'evolutionary' natural selection for philosophies?


In other words, THANK YOU.

Well, there's a saying about opinions resembling a body part, but that's not really for repetition amongst mixed company like this.

Take care, and again - thanks!

EDIT: roflmao!

I've got a M$ Media Player running in the background while board-surfing, and Great Big Sea's "Consequence Free" just came on as I posted.

For those unfamiliar with the lyrics, the song begins with:

Once again, I think that M$ is spying on me and adjusting that 'random' shuffle to suit the circumstances.
(Like when on an MMO and starting a mass PvP melee, Bryan Adams' "We're Gonna Win" came on)

/me chuckles then runs spybot, and puts on his tinfoil skullcap