Organ donation (religions, science)

[huajiro]

I really want to donate, but have always had it in the back of my mind that they have to react quickly to get your organs. What if you are not dead? What I mean to say is that sometimes people laps out and revive.....if you are going to be a donor, the have to act as soon as you are gone.....you don't get a chance.

By the way....my brother just died and came back about 3 weeks ago.

[michel]

Originally Posted by huajiro

I really want to donate, but have always had it in the back of my mind that they have to react quickly to get your organs. What if you are not dead? What I mean to say is that sometimes people laps out and revive.....if you are going to be a donor, the have to act as soon as you are gone.....you don't get a chance.

By the way....my brother just died and came back about 3 weeks ago.

Well, there you go. My own grandfather was very worried about his death; I forget the name of the condition, but there is a medical condition where you appear to be dead (No pulse, no breath) - and, of course, in his day, no scans. he wrote a line in his will to ask that all the blood be drained from his body before burrial.

There had been stories of people 'coming around' after being burried; discovered years after, with obvious signs that they had tried to break out of the coffin. I wish I could remember the name of the condition.

[Fluffy]

No religion, necessarily. I'm refering to a "last will and testement" and "enduring power of attorney". I don't need to exist in any fashion to have my will carried out. That's a legal obligation.

The law can be changed. I do not find supporting wills a defensible position. Also the fact that it is law does not mean anything other than the fact that it is law. It does not add extra "truth" or "morality" to the argument.

I wonder, what other goodness would you make enforecable under the law? Required prayer? Burkas for women? Happy thoughts?

People have a right to do absolutely anything they want to do. The law, in my view, should be there to protect this right. Unfortunately, a necessary part of protecting it is to limit in certain areas so the law is required to do that but only in aid of keeping it intact as much as possible. For example, if I murder somebody, I am crippling the victim's rights. The law must override my own rights in favour of the victim. This is an example of personal freedom being limited in order to protect personal freedom. This is the only thing I think the government and law should exist for on a social level (although it also has functions on the practical, political and economic levels).

You appear to be accusing me of heavy handed government whilst in my view I am doing the opposite. In my eyes the law has no right to protect the rights of a dead body. This is heavy handed government and I do not believe in it. I am not advocating an extention of the law but a limitation of it. So to say yes to any of your questions would be doing the exact opposite of what I propose.

You mentioned the Will Fluffy - one of the requests that a solicitor will often ask is 'How do you wish your body to be disposed?'; I used to be quite 'tied up' in semi-legal work during my working life, and you would be amazed at some of the Demands that people include in their wills, concerning their remains ; I am sure you know the expression from Terry's 'patch' in England - "There's nowt as queer as folk" (and, of course, for our Friends over the pond, queer here means 'unusual, unpredictable).[img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]

I can only imagine, Michel. I view the diversity has only another reason why the law should not protect a person's last wishes simply because they are their last wishes. There are always exceptions of course.

[michel]

You know Fluffy - this is only a comment (Not a criticism) - but your attitude to the dead individual's body seems very 'left wing' in it's political/moral stance - i.e the body 'belongs' to the state...

[Fluffy]

You know Fluffy - this is only a comment (Not a criticism) - but your attitude to the dead individual's body seems very 'left wing' in it's political/moral stance - i.e the body 'belongs' to the state...[img]images/smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Left wing? *face falls* I was so going for right wing on this!

I wouldn't like to apply left or right to this since I view such terms as purely of economic value. Right wing parties stand for the same general things economically but vary wildly on social issues such as this. I'm arguing for the removal of government power so I guess it would be a libertarian view.

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.

[mr.guy]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

The law can be changed. I do not find supporting wills a defensible position.

The law you are proposing can also be changed. But are you suggesting we be completely done away with wills? (really, i'm not sure if that's what you mean)

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Also the fact that it is law does not mean anything other than the fact that it is law. It does not add extra "truth" or "morality" to the argument.
I concure. Obviously, the same applies to forced organ donation.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

People have a right to do absolutely anything they want to do. The law, in my view, should be there to protect this right. Unfortunately, a necessary part of protecting it is to limit in certain areas so the law is required to do that but only in aid of keeping it intact as much as possible. For example, if I murder somebody, I am crippling the victim's rights. The law must override my own rights in favour of the victim. This is an example of personal freedom being limited in order to protect personal freedom.

This equates non-compliance with organ donation to murder. Your intention, i presume?

Originally Posted by Fluffy

This is the only thing I think the government and law should exist for on a social level (although it also has functions on the practical, political and economic levels)

please explain

Originally Posted by Fluffy

You appear to be accusing me of heavy handed government whilst in my view I am doing the opposite. In my eyes the law has no right to protect the rights of a dead body. This is heavy handed government and I do not believe in it.

i believe that you believe it, but i don't believe you can justify it

Originally Posted by Fluffy

I am not advocating an extention of the law but a limitation of it.

i'm afraid you're in no way advocating a limitation of the law. You may like to recind alot of OTHER laws, but here you're just calling for "state ownership of bodies", as i believe michel is saying.

Outside of such over reaching or ghoulish a law that might be said to be, there are some natural extensions to the law that might be pretty restrictive. For example, in Canada the huge tax increase on cigarettes was justified as a balancing tax for the burden of smokers on our socialized health care. They pay for it, so if you go out of your way to make yourself sick, the idea is that you pay in extra for the larger share your sure to take. If the state is responsible for harvesting organs, don't you suppose they might take some extra steps to insure that all organs reach them in optimal shape? Who knows what that could mean, but it could in itself be a bit invasive. I still maintain that it is far better to cultivate society to the idea of organ donation as social responsibility instead of ripping their guts out abitrarily when then done with them.

[Fluffy]

The law you are proposing can also be changed. But are you suggesting we be completely done away with wills? (really, i'm not sure if that's what you mean)

No more than I think that people should be prevented from believing in the invisible pink unicorn. I just don't believe that such a belief should have any legal power.

This equates non-compliance with organ donation to murder. Your intention, i presume?

No, I don't mean to equate those two things. I believe there is a difference between action and inaction that is also significant. I am attempting to show that the social measures I am proposing are similar to that of the law that condemns murder. I could have chosen anything similar such as the law that was repealed in the early 1900s which condemned witchcraft but the former was one that more people are familiar with and so is easier to work with.

please explain

Basically, I believe that everyone has the right to do whatever they want. This has got nothing to do with my moral beliefs but is born purely out of practicality and reason. However, there must be a system to deal with conflicts in interest. I believe that the sole function of social government is to be such a system.

To go back to my murder law example, this is exactly the role I expect a social government to take. It is balancing one person's right to do whatever they want (to kill another) with the same right of another (to live) and working out a compromise (nobody can kill but nobody can be killed by another either).

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 the limitation in the law which you say I am not advocating.

What happens to the body after that I am not clear on myself. It should be treated more like an object than a person though since that is what it is. I could argue a case for state ownership but privatisation seems to be the way to go in the modern capitalist world and I think that solution is far more viable in that it is more likely to happen.

[jamaesi]

I need a drink.

Me too, now. x.x

Well, I guess you didn't specifically say religion. But since another person said that he didn't want to donate due to religion, and then you said that not to donate was selfish, this seemed rather much to me like you were calling him selfish because of a religious preference to not donate his organs.

If was directly quoting and responding to him, then that would be true.

This also gets into the "are all religious beliefs good- just because they are a religious belief" debate...

If the state is responsible for harvesting organs, don't you suppose they might take some extra steps to insure that all organs reach them in optimal shape? Who knows what that could mean, but it could in itself be a bit invasive. I still maintain that it is far better to cultivate society to the idea of organ donation as social responsibility instead of ripping their guts out abitrarily when then done with them.

That would be nice- if more people cared about others...

Otherwise, this strikes me as a slippery slope. Can you prove the government would do that? And why would they need too- if everyone donated their organs when they died I think there might be enough for those who need them- and heck, I´d rather have a slightly worn out organ than none t'all.

There had been stories of people 'coming around' after being burried; discovered years after, with obvious signs that they had tried to break out of the coffin. I wish I could remember the name of the condition.

Recently? Wouldn´t the embalming process... well, kill them?