No blocking organ donations

Remove all ads!

Healthy in this case means they don't have an inheritable disease, so their kids are alright. Should people stop using medicine, because their sickness 'might' be inheritable, the kids can use the same cure, who cares.

You don't care about other people's lives ? Your 'these' people thing is almost like racism.

I have some phobias too, so I understand there isn't really anything to change your mind. But don't try to make other's to change their opinion about saving people with something that's not important to them when they're dead.

 

if they are healthy, why do they need an organ? like i said above very few transplants (less then 7% 'the independent' aug 28 2006) are because of injury, everyone else is because of neglect, illness or birth defects - these are not healthy people.

the same cure is an organ transplant.

explain

 

Since racism is a strong word, I said almost, what I mean is that you *wan't* these people to die rather than give them something that's not important, or rather, doesn't exist anymore in anything living. You let them die because they have a certain kind of dicease, not because it can't be cured.

 

Those 7% who are injured and require new organs (your information) are considered weak because they got hit by an 18-wheeler? 7% is alot of people that don't fit your Darwinistic belief that requires they die because they are weaker than us.

Plus, humans have been trying to prevent death as long as they've existed. To give up now would be pointless - we now have better ways than ever before.

So we give them 3 organs and they live. We've just saved 4 lives, including the parent.

 

Wrong again, Shoshino. My tone hasn't changed at all. I'm simply pointing out to you that what you're calling a flaw in the logic is a no-nevermind to me.

 

We'll go into cancer if we damn well please. Yes, most (NOT all) cancers are treatable if you seek help in the early stages, and even then how the hell are you supposed to know? Few early stage cancers have noticable symptoms, and even fewer have any definitive ones. Hell, it took them months after her first symptom to even figure out that my mom had cancer, never mind start treating for it. There isn't some magic wand to wave to easily find out that you have cancer, and everyone who doesn't know just isn't paying attention. Even with breast cancer, probably the only one you can actually check for yourself, you may not be able to find a lump that's buried deep.

It's called not being an insensitive prick. Turn around and start searching for it, because you lost that a couple posts ago.

 

It's half-assed eugenics is what it is. Instead of weeding out the weak, you're just proposing that we let people with hereditary illnesses die from them.

Which is utterly, utterly monstrous. Would you really find that easy to just say, "sorry, you were born with a genetic disorder, we're just going to let you perish" so easily? because if you could, You have a LOT more issues than just tomophobia. Namely being a completely self-centered sociopath.

 

I don't understand how saying that we should not just put people with hereditary diseases in a room to die makes me a hypocrite because "millions die from a lack of food or basic medical care".

This isn't about vitriol against people who don't want to donate their organs or blood. It's your body, do whatever the hell you want. It's vitriol against someone who is saying that being born weak or ill makes you an inferior being who should be hastily euthanised for the good of all.

 

This thread gets more and more unbelievable the further it goes on. It strted off as a simple "the law is impinging on my personal rights" and has become a heated attack on the value of human lives.

 

That's SP for ya, HB

 

I just think its strange that somebody would hoard their organs when they're dead. I wonder if I can declare in my will that the $100,000 I've saved goes to nobody and is buried with me?

Better yet, send me out on a burning boat with all my possessions, two slave girls and my dog.

 

Because organ donation is something we can control on a singular basis. I can help save lives by donating my organs, but personally, I can't cure world hunger. Sure, I can donate money to a foundation, but that involves giving up something that I possibly need. I don't need my organs when I die, so I can give them to a good cause.

Might as well save as many as we can, right?

 

This is not saying that "extraordinary" measures need not be taken, this is saying that we should outright refuse medical treatment to people who suffer from hereditary illnessess. And I still can't understand how organ donation factors into world hunger. By donating my organs, I've made it so starving people in the Third World can't get food or medical treatment? What? I still can't understand how you're linking together two unrelated issues.

I think you may be putting words into MY mouth, TA, since I never said that we should take "extraordinary" mean to preserve lives, only that what Shoshino was describing heavily resembles the core concept of eugenics, which is to prevent the "weak" from breeding, and is extremely inhumane.

 

im not inhumane im practical, by saving these people you create a bloodline of people who will suffer because of that one act of compassion.. dont think in the short term, think in the long term of your actions.
i have never said that there is no compassion in saving that life, i like to look at a bigger picture, a picture that paints a world of disease and suffering because of our own genius, a genius which has been used to create a science based on circumventing nature and natural selection. if someone has an infection, go ahead and treat them - that antibiotic that you have used (which shouldnt exist by nature, we were created with an immune system) to speed that person getting back to fitness just caused a bug a new immunity, we have such terrifying diseases on this planet now, that we have created because of the short sightedness of a few smart people.

ive always said, genius doesnt breed common sense.

and as for the food problem, there is something we can do about that:

every heared of a grain mountain? or a milk lake... its a large amount of food which is hoarded when it cant be sold, if you look into the EU agricultural policy then you will notice that the EU subsidises farmers for what they cant sell, so farmers have no desire to produce less because they are getting paid for it regardless - that food is then stored as mountins and lakes and often left to rot, we could be transporting this to countries which need it, but we dont.

and what BTA said was that by donating your organ the money it will cost to remove your organ, test and store it, and then implant it into another person, pay for that person's bed in a hospital and the staff to monitor them and fight to save them sould something go wrong - could have been used to feed countless people in the third world for the rest of their lives.

 

I wrote this big long thing, but it got deleted, so here is an abreviated verison (I think):

Choosing to not donate your organs is not at all monstrous (selfish, maybe, but not evil). Saying that no one should donate their organs so that the 'weak' can be eliminated (which is what Soshino is saying) is monstrous.

Shosino - giving organs to people who will breed more people with problems gives those people a chance to survive until we find a permanant solution/cure. Telling them that we aren't going to let them live for another couple years (in which a cure could be found, especially if we stress science as a national goal) is terrible and downright wrong.

And BTA, organ donation is something that I can do that costs nothing to me that can help people right now. I can't solve world hunger, but perhaps I can save a life. And by suggesting that we should not donate organs because there are more people dying elsewhere is completely irrational. There are people we can save right next door if we just sign a card. Now, I am not saying we should not fund world hunger relief, but by suggesting that we stop organ donation for hunger is like suggesting we should cut all science research budget because 'there are many, many more people dying of hunger' than those researchers can help.

Somehow it was more eloquent when I wasn't frustrated at losing all the stuff I wrote.