We Should Kill People to Meet Organ Demands :)

There is a major shortage of Organs in the UK; as of 2010 10,500 people are on the transplant list; this number is increasing dramatically. I think that we should kill people with no quality of life or who are terminally ill or disabled for their organs.
The Utilitarian approach is to create the greatest good for the greatest number even if this means killing people because this is the best for society.
I also think animal organs should be used because animals are less important than humans and they deserve to die for our benefit. (We eat meat afterall).
It would also be plausable to develop embryos to breed as potential organ donors, (like the film 'Never let me go'.)
I believe that this is the only way forward to combat the shortage of Organs.

Reply 1

Stratos

15

Or how about we automatically enter everyone into the donor list, so that when they die they'll hand the organs over unless the person has signed off.

Reply 2

It could be lupus

12

Probably a troll, but in any case you do realise those people with little quality of life or who are terminally ill are normally unsuitable organ donors due to their age or due to their illness. Makes the OP completely pointless since utilitarians would not use their organs...

Reply 3

History-Student

16

Original post by Stratos

Or how about we automatically enter everyone into the donor list, so that when they die they'll hand the organs over unless the person has signed off.

The opt out method would be superior to the opt in method, that way lethargy is a positive rather than a negative.

I still like my idea of "if you're not a donor you aren't entitled to someone else's organs if you need them". Exceptions of course for medical reasons, but I reckon that would massively increase those willing to donate.

Reply 4

posietoes

I know someone who is terminally ill because he needs a transplant. Defeating the object a lil bit if he's killed.

Muppet...

Reply 5

Kitty Pryde

1

Why stop there? Introduce the death penalty and use criminals organs :rolleyes:

Reply 6

Stratos

15

Original post by History-Student

The opt out method would be superior to the opt in method, that way lethargy is a positive rather than a negative.

I still like my idea of "if you're not a donor you aren't entitled to someone else's organs if you need them". Exceptions of course for medical reasons, but I reckon that would massively increase those willing to donate.

How about we combine the both!

I never thought of your point, it makes a lot of sense. ^__^

Reply 7

bcninja

people are people you cant just kill of someone off like that i understand what you say but seriously? what about their family? plus no i just think thats wrong >.<

Reply 8

Martyn*

13

A Tory manifesto pledge.

I volunteer you.

I agree...let's start with you, OP :biggrin:

Reply 11

SARAHANN92

I like the common sense approach of Stratos' first comment, although you'd have to remove people from the list who had infectious diseases such as AIDs or HIV, purly in the interests of health. :biggrin:

Reply 12

moonkatt

19

Original post by SARAHANN92

I like the common sense approach of Stratos' first comment, although you'd have to remove people from the list who had infectious diseases such as AIDs or HIV, purly in the interests of health. :biggrin:

One of the criteria at the moment once brain stem death has been confirmed is to check the donor does not have any infectious diseases, along with keeping them within some pretty strict physiological parameters while they wait for the retreval team to arrive.

I'm in favour of the opt out idea, as long as the public are clearly educated that they have to opt out if they do not want their organs donating after their death I see no problem with it.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 13

concubine

17

Original post by Stratos

Or how about we automatically enter everyone into the donor list, so that when they die they'll hand the organs over unless the person has signed off.

How about we do that, but we remove the option to sign yourself off of the donor list, and take away any rights of the next of kin when it comes to such decisions.

Because. Well, **** your bull**** religion or beliefs, you're ****ing dead. That's all gone because it was nonsense anyway.

Thank **** everyone close to me is sane enough to feel the same.

Or, at the very least, anyone that chooses to opt out should be kept at the very bottom of the donations list. Always.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 14

AP1989

11

Let's start with you then.

Reply 15

Philbert

17

Original post by wafflemonster

I also think animal organs should be used because animals are less important than humans and they deserve to die for our benefit. (We eat meat afterall).

Slight problem there: there is more chance of organ rejection due to foreign antigens. Researchers are working on xenotranslantation, but it isn't going to be a realistic option for a while. Plus, pig organs (hearts, valves etc. mostly) are the only species that are similar enough in size to transplant.

I agree that everyone should be automatically entered on the donor register, and be able to opt out.

Reply 16

hufflepuffer

You have mental issues. We'll just have a great purge of all disabled and terminally ill people, shall we? They have exactly the same rights as everyone else. Go **** yourself.

I'm planning on killing myself the second they try and put me into a home, it's simply a way of redirecting your inheritance onto some stranger you've never met.

Reply 19

Enoch.

16

No one is getting my organs.

We Should Kill People to Meet Organ Demands :)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you