Should organ donation be mandatory?

[Victus]

Stargazer wrote

No, Victus. This example, more than any other, should show us that organs harvested from living beings are not commodities to be bought and sold. It's not like buying a bag of potato chips.

Or a used car.

Especially a used car.

It seems like it's exactly like buying a used car, once you get all the emotions out of the way.

[Stargazer]

Victus wrote

It seems like it's exactly like buying a used car, once you get all the emotions out of the way.

No, Victus. This is not an emotional issue. This is a biological issue. It has to do with attempting to save lives, not providing someone with transportation or a new jacket.

You can always return a faulty car or jacket and get another one. Not nearly that simple with organs.

Your attempt to revert to emotion versus logic is transparent here, and deflects attention from the real issue.

In the end, you are going to have to admit that the organ sale scheme is not going to be practical. But I know it will to be difficult for you. It's OK. Take your time.

[Victus]

Stargazer wrote

No, Victus. This is not an emotional issue.

...

Star wrote

I'm sorry, this has become even more gruesome.

Stargazer wrote

Stargazer wrote

OK. Ew.

Stargazer wrote

The image of people slowly selling piece after piece of their bodies is vaguely gruesome.

Stargazer wrote

This is what scares me so much about the proposal.

Stargazer wrote

Stargazer wrote

Ewww, please no.

Stargazer wrote

Sorry, Victus, but every angle of selling brings me back to that movie. I thought that concept horrific.

Oh, ok.

Star wrote

This is a biological issue. It has to do with attempting to save lives, not providing someone with transportation or a new jacket.

From an economics perspective, what's the difference?

Star wrote

You can always return a faulty car or jacket and get another one. Not nearly that simple with organs.

Plenty of retailers and product types do not offer refunds - so what makes organs special in this regard?

Star wrote

Your attempt to revert to emotion versus logic is transparent here, and deflects attention from the real issue.

That you object to sickly people saving their own lives by making voluntary trades with other, willing participants because you find such an arrangement to be 'not seemly'?

Star wrote

In the end, you are going to have to admit that the organ sale scheme is not going to be practical. But I know it will to be difficult for you. It's OK. Take your time.

I'm still not seeing how organ trades are different from any other kind of trade. So I'll keep bringing up the question from earlier...

Victus wrote

Imagine two scenarios:

1) A man approaches you and says, "Hello. I would like to offer you $20,000 to be a crew member on my ship as we fish for shellfish on the Bering Sea. We'll cover all the costs of training and housing. The trip will be for approximately 10 days. A word of warning, there is a 0.35% chance that you will die on the trip. Interested?"

2) A man approaches you and says, "Hello. I would like to offer you $20,000 to donate one of your kidneys. We'll cover all the medical expenses related to the procedure and any related increase in your insurance premiums stemming from the procedure. You'll be in recover for approximately 10 days. A word of warning, there is a 0.03% chance that you will die on the table. Interested?

You think (1) should be perfectly legal, but (2) is obviously a situation where the government needs to step in and ban the practice altogether. So what's the difference between (1) and (2) in your mind?

So what's the difference?

[Davin]

Just because someone shows emotion, doesn't meant that they're being illogical.

[Sol]

And just because someone is being illogical, doesn't mean they don't have emotions.

(Deep seated and repressed emotions like anger, fear and dread of being wrong)

[Stargazer]

Victus, the core of the issue is biological, regardless of whether I react to it or not. Also, I did say, waaaaay back, that for me the issue is personal, since I have a friend in need of a donated organ who probably won't get one and will die soon. Nevertheless. You are hiding behind my empathy and avoiding the real question:

A "commodities trade" in donated organs is not viable due to the fact that the organs are in varying degrees vital to the living beings they are harvested from, they have a really short shelf life, and many organs are never viable at all. Not to mention the abuses that the whole scenario opens up which we have discussed ad nauseam.

I think we're at the point where you just can't admit to being wrong, so you keep on trying to finagle a way to be right.

[Victus]

Stargazer wrote

Victus, the core of the issue is biological, regardless of whether I react to it or not. Also, I did say, waaaaay back, that for me the issue is personal, since I have a friend in need of a donated organ who probably won't get one and will die soon. Nevertheless. You are hiding behind my empathy and avoiding the real question:

A "commodities trade" in donated organs is not viable due to the fact that the organs are in varying degrees vital to the living beings they are harvested from

Then why doesn't your support for a ban vary along with the degree if necessity of each organ? Since kidneys can be extracted at low risk and generate no long-term health risks for the donor, then what's your argument for a ban on kidney sales?

If this were really the reason behind your objection, you would still permit sales of all but a few organs (e.g., hearts, possibly lungs) - but you don't.

Star wrote

they have a really short shelf life

This argument applies to live (and dead) organ donation regardless of whether money changes hands. If this were really the reason behind your objection, you would support banning all organ donation - but you don't.

Star wrote

and many organs are never viable at all.

This argument applies to live (and dead) organ donation regardless of whether money changes hands. If this were really the reason behind your objection, you would support banning all organ donation - but you don't.

Star wrote

Not to mention the abuses that the whole scenario opens up which we have discussed ad nauseam.

These same abuses apply to basically any other (relatively) high-risk trade, like crab fishing on the Bering Sea. If this were really the reason behind your objection, you would support banning those trades as well - but you don't.

Star wrote

I think we're at the point where you just can't admit to being wrong, so you keep on trying to finagle a way to be right.

I think we've been stuck at a point for nearly a month where you won't answer my simple question...

Victus, a month ago wrote

Imagine two scenarios:

1) A man approaches you and says, "Hello. I would like to offer you $20,000 to be a crew member on my ship as we fish for shellfish on the Bering Sea. We'll cover all the costs of training and housing. The trip will be for approximately 10 days. A word of warning, there is a 0.35% chance that you will die on the trip. Interested?"

2) A man approaches you and says, "Hello. I would like to offer you $20,000 to donate one of your kidneys. We'll cover all the medical expenses related to the procedure and any related increase in your insurance premiums stemming from the procedure. You'll be in recover for approximately 10 days. A word of warning, there is a 0.03% chance that you will die on the table. Interested?

You think (1) should be perfectly legal, but (2) is obviously a situation where the government needs to step in and ban the practice altogether. So what's the difference between (1) and (2) in your mind?

What makes organs so special? It's been a month and you keep running away from the question every time I bring it up. All your offered answers are fundamentally incoherent and irrational.

[Victus]

Mystery double post.

[Stargazer]

Victus wrote

Mystery double post.

Yeah, I was wondering If I was seeing double.

[Stargazer]

Victus wrote

Then why doesn't your support for a ban vary along with the degree if necessity of each organ? Since kidneys can be extracted at low risk and generate no long-term health risks for the donor, then what's your argument for a ban on kidney sales?

If this were really the reason behind your objection, you would still permit sales of all but a few organs (e.g., hearts, possibly lungs) - but you don't.

Not necessarily. I still think sales are a bad idea all around. Selling artificial organs, perhaps, but not organs cut out of people.

Victus wrote

This argument applies to live (and dead) organ donation regardless of whether money changes hands. If this were really the reason behind your objection, you would support banning all organ donation - but you don't.

Donations from a cadaver are ok, but I still think they should be just that: donations.

Victus wrote

These same abuses apply to basically any other (relatively) high-risk trade, like crab fishing on the Bering Sea. If this were really the reason behind your objection, you would support banning those trades as well - but you don't.

Crab fishing is a trade. Organ selling is not. Thank goodness.

Victus wrote

I think we've been stuck at a point for nearly a month where you won't answer my simple question...



What makes organs so special? It's been a month and you keep running away from the question every time I bring it up. All your offered answers are fundamentally incoherent and irrational.

Not so much running away as not seeing that as a viable either/or comparison. You see them as equivalent "trades." I do not.

[Victus]

Stargazer wrote

Not necessarily. I still think sales are a bad idea all around. Selling artificial organs, perhaps, but not organs cut out of people.

That just side steps the issue. If your reason for banning organ trading is that it's dangerous, then why doesn't your position vary with the level of risk for each organ group? And if risk is really the issue, why would donating a kidney for free be ok, but taking the same risk for money not?

Star wrote

Donations from a cadaver are ok, but I still think they should be just that: donations.

That's my point. If your position were actually based on what you just claimed it was based on, you would find both cadaver donations and living donations just as unacceptable (and appropriately banned) as you do living (or cadaver) organ sales. But you don't.

Star wrote

Crab fishing is a trade. Organ selling is not. Thank goodness.

Crab fishing entails exchanging labor, in addition to the risk of death or injury, for money.

Organ selling entails exchanging an organ, in addition to the risk of death or injury, for money.

What's the difference, again?

Star wrote

Not so much running away as not seeing that as a viable either/or comparison. You see them as equivalent "trades." I do not.

Exactly. You think organs are special. I asked you why? So far all the answers you've given (see above) apply to other behaviors that you don't think should be banned - so why is selling organs special?

[Stargazer]

Victus wrote

That just side steps the issue. If your reason for banning organ trading is that it's dangerous, then why doesn't your position vary with the level of risk for each organ group? And if risk is really the issue, why would donating a kidney for free be ok, but taking the same risk for money not?

Money makes the inherent problems worse.

http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/143/143

Victus wrote

That's my point. If your position were actually based on what you just claimed it was based on, you would find both cadaver donations and living donations just as unacceptable (and appropriately banned) as you do living (or cadaver) organ sales. But you don't.

I disagree. My biggest objection is the consequences to the poor from selling pieces of themselves, as described in the article above.

Victus wrote

Crab fishing entails exchanging labor, in addition to the risk of death or injury, for money.

Organ selling entails exchanging an organ, in addition to the risk of death or injury, for money.

What's the difference, again?

Crab fishing is a job that can be repeated over and over for years in exchange for money. You can only sell a kidney once.

Victus wrote

Exactly. You think organs are special. I asked you why? So far all the answers you've given (see above) apply to other behaviors that you don't think should be banned - so why is selling organs special?

I refer you again to that article above.

[lostsheep]

Victus wrote

It seems like it's exactly like buying a used car, once you get all the emotions out of the way.

Seriously?

This whole discussion has morphed into an outer limits episode for me. (Now to hunt it down: it's the one where some poor fuck has mortgaged away all of his internal organs and he has not enough credit left to open his door, so he starves to death.) And again the "Never let me go" book, but this was brought up earlier in this thread, as I recall.

[Victus]

Stargazer wrote

Money makes the inherent problems worse.

If this were really the reason behind your objection, you would want to ban other, (relatively) high-risk for-profit activities, like crab fishing on the Bering Sea - but you don't.

Stargazer wrote

http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/143/143

...

Article wrote

In South Africa, a nurse expresses her hostility towards those foreigners arriving in local hospitals in search of organs: "[A]s far as I am concerned South African organs belong to South African citizens. And…before I see a white person from Namibia getting their hands on a heart or kidney that belongs to a little Black South African child, I myself will see to it that the bloody organ gets tossed into a bucket" (Scheper-Hughes 11).

My, what enlightened people seem to share your position.

Star wrote

I disagree.

Your initial argument was that organs have a short shelf life, and therefore if would be wrong to commercialize them. Do they suddenly get an even shorter one if money changes hands? If not, then the argument applies to living donations, as well as donations from cadavers, regardless of whether money changes hands. As such, you can either bite the bullet and support banning all donations, or drop the argument.

Star wrote

My biggest objection is the consequences to the poor from selling pieces of themselves, as described in the article above.

Which is less than the risk of death and morbidity from other for-profit activities, like crab fishing. So why aren't you more worried about that?

Star wrote

Crab fishing is a job that can be repeated over and over for years in exchange for money. You can only sell a kidney once.

Indeed, and this weakens your position all the more. The one-year risk from crab fishing is ten times that of donating a kidney. After ten years, the cumulative risk is 100x greater for being a crab fisherman. So your argument obviously isn't based on risk.

Star wrote

I refer you again to that article above.

The black market organ trade exists for the absence of a legal alternative, just like the black market in drugs and prostitution. If you want to pin the horrors of the black market on someone, you should look in the mirror.

[Victus]

lostsheep wrote

Seriously?

This whole discussion has morphed into an outer limits episode for me. (Now to hunt it down: it's the one where some poor fuck has mortgaged away all of his internal organs and he has not enough credit left to open his door, so he starves to death.) And again the "Never let me go" book, but this was brought up earlier in this thread, as I recall.

So your objection is based on some science fiction you saw on TV? It's good to know how much value you put on human life.