Turn on thread page Beta

Organ Donation watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Do you think that people should be allowed to specify when donating an organ that it doesn't go to someone who is a criminal?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    My oppion is that they shouldn't because it could lead to people saying they don't want to donate organs to people who of other races or religions. Also are all crimes the same or is it only murderers, peodophiles and rapist ect? I was just wondering what other people think
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Thats a very good point - and it would wholy dpened upon the individual. However, there are some problems as you may be able to specify what is donated but not how or why it is used - i could be transplanted or used as practice of surgeons - even plastic surgeons, but you cannot know what will happen.

    I don't think you could let people specify who gets their organs. Its sucha selfless thing anyway that I can't think why one would choose not to donate to criminals. We cannot treat them as second class citiznes no matter how much some would like it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    Do you think that people should be allowed to specify when donating an organ that it doesn't go to someone who is a criminal?
    No.....however I do not think murderers should have any entitlement to organs.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    Do you think that people should be allowed to specify when donating an organ that it doesn't go to someone who is a criminal?
    Punishment of criminals is the business of the police and the legal system. If private persons were allowed to punish people on their own accord we would get a chaos. The same thing goes here. If the judge or jury (whatever system you use , depending on the country) has decided on a punishment for a criminal then THAT is the convicts punishment. You should, at no point, allow a system where the basis for the decision of someone receiving an organ transplant is based on "who would use it the best". The exception being when you try to match bloodtypes etc in order to make sure the organ is not rejected by the body.

    Also, I do recognise that in some cases it may be absolutely unjustifiable to give a pasient an organ transplant. As an example, I would argue that those who has suffered from liver failure due to diseases or accidental poisoning should be given an advantage in the waiting list, before those who have destroyed their liver through an excessive alcohol consumption or drug abuse.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You can't decide who is and who isn't entitled to organs by the type of person they are. Inside a hospital, all men are equal. Mr George Best is a prime example of a waste of an organ - there are people who are much more deserving. However, where should the line be drawn? What about someone who will die within 2 years without a new liver, but has AIDS and will die within 5 anyway? Are they entitled to just as much precedence as a person with a normal life-expectancy?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Preference for organs should be decided by place on the waiting list only. A life saving transplant could easily be the incentive a criminal needs (idealistic I know, but also probably true in some cases) and give them a chance to right themselves. If more people carried donor cards this would be less of a problem too.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr White)
    You can't decide who is and who isn't entitled to organs by the type of person they are. Inside a hospital, all men are equal. Mr George Best is a prime example of a waste of an organ - there are people who are much more deserving. However, where should the line be drawn? What about someone who will die within 2 years without a new liver, but has AIDS and will die within 5 anyway? Are they entitled to just as much precedence as a person with a normal life-expectancy?

    I think the main problem is that in most cases there is no way of knowing if a person deserves to get the transplant or not.

    George Best has been highlighted in the media, but think of the people decidingwho gets to have the transplants. Do they know that such a person is a bad person just from their names?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gimp)
    A life saving transplant could easily be the incentive a criminal needs (idealistic I know, but also probably true in some cases) and give them a chance to right themselves.
    I somewhat doubt that. It seems a rather trivial argument, but I do think that there may be a slight incentive of a criminal having a 'new lease of life', after recieving a new organ, but the chance of it drastically altering his thinking is likely to be minimal. Still, I don't doubt that it's a possibility (albeit somewhat remote).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joey_Johns)
    I think the main problem is that in most cases there is no way of knowing if a person deserves to get the transplant or not.

    George Best has been highlighted in the media, but think of the people decidingwho gets to have the transplants. Do they know that such a person is a bad person just from their names?
    Exactly - there is no way of defining who should and should not be entitled. If Person A needs a new liver due to alcohol consumption, who's to say that he'll have learnt his lesson by this point, or will just start binging straight away afterwards? The same with convicts - It seems somewhat callous for a doctor to say, "Oh, sorry, you can't have this new kidney - you've been in prison before."
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr White)
    Exactly - there is no way of defining who should and should not be entitled. If Person A needs a new liver due to alcohol consumption, who's to say that he'll have learnt his lesson by this point, or will just start binging straight away afterwards? The same with convicts - It seems somewhat callous for a doctor to say, "Oh, sorry, you can't have this new kidney - you've been in prison before."
    Would you object to a convicted murderer, who is serving a life sentance receiving an organ? I would.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daveo)
    Would you object to a convicted murderer, who is serving a life sentance receiving an organ? I would.
    No. Mr Life Sentence is just as deserving of recieving an organ as anyone else. He may be a murderous psychopath, but he is still a person, and I stand by my belief that you can't place precedence on a person's life by their nature.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr White)
    No. Mr Life Sentence is just as deserving of recieving an organ as anyone else. He may be a murderous psychopath, but he is still a person, and I stand by my belief that you can't place precedence on a person's life by their nature.
    How about a person on death row? Ok, capitall punishment is not practiced in Britain and you may oppose it, but still.

    How about a heavy heroin abuser who has brought a liver disease upon himself? Should he have the same right to a new liver as someone who has been infected with hepatite C during a blood transfer ?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    I agree generally, but I would place a caveat that the recipient must not misuse the organ; this would deprive a more worthy recipient and be a waste.
    How could you do that though?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    I agree generally, but I would place a caveat that the recipient must not misuse the organ; this would deprive a more worthy recipient and be a waste.
    With missuse I presume you are talking about abuse of alcohol, heroin or other drugs which may damage the organ ?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    How about a person on death row? Ok, capitall punishment is not practiced in Britain and you may oppose it, but still.
    Well, that depends - if a person is going to be executed next week, it doesn't make sense to give him a new kidney, does it? However, some people spend 40 years on death row, and if it is likely that it is going to be a long while before they are killed, then they should be given the organ in the same precedence as everyone else. Juse because they are incarcerated doesn't mean that they are not allowed to live to the same extent as a non-convict.

    (Original post by Jonatan)
    How about a heavy heroin abuser who has brought a liver disease upon himself? Should he have the same right to a new liver as someone who has been infected with hepatite C during a blood transfer ?
    There is no effective way to define who is 'more deserving'. If you can propose an efficient system of deciding precedence based on lifestyle, then you will be a better person than I.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr White)
    There is no effective way to define who is 'more deserving'. If you can propose an efficient system of deciding precedence based on lifestyle, then you will be a better person than I.
    It is quite easy to deduce what has caused a liver disease because the toxins are usually accumulated in the organ. Heroin abusers are also easy to spot. If a person comes in with clear signs of alcohol abuse and traces of heroin derivates ( substances formed when heroin decomposes) in the liver you should simply deny them a new organ. If people decide to destroy their liver they will haveto take the consequences. People who have been unfortunate enough to get their liver destroyed because of a virus infection or because of cancer should go before those who have destroyed it by getting drunk every saturday for the last 20 years.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    It is quite easy to deduce what has caused a liver disease because the toxins are usually accumulated in the organ. Heroin abusers are also easy to spot. If a person comes in with clear signs of alcohol abuse and traces of heroin derivates ( substances formed when heroin decomposes) in the liver you should simply deny them a new organ. If people decide to destroy their liver they will haveto take the consequences. People who have been unfortunate enough to get their liver destroyed because of a virus infection or because of cancer should go before those who have destroyed it by getting drunk every saturday for the last 20 years.
    Biologically it is simple to define the cause of the neccesity of a new organ. Morally, however, how can you define who is 'deserving'? Person A may have binged for 20 years, but how can you decide that they will not regret their actions, and this need for medical intervention will 'put them on the right track'? Of course, there are some people who will abuse their new organ just the same, but how can we differentiate beforehand? However, a person who's need for a new organ is not a direct result of their own life-decisions is on a seperate scale, so it is easy to put them ahead in order or prevalence over Person A. Still, who's job will it be to decide who deserves to live and who doesn't? I know that I would not want that responsibility.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    In my opinion there is no right or wrong answer to this question, it is all subjective opinion. From reading the posts each side has clear arguements however it is the area in the middle and the prospect of chosing who 'deserves' an organ. unfortunately I don't think this is possible as nobody can see into the future to see how an organ will affect the recipiants behaviour.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daveo)
    In my opinion there is no right or wrong answer to this question, it is all subjective opinion. From reading the posts each side has clear arguements however it is the area in the middle and the prospect of chosing who 'deserves' an organ. unfortunately I don't think this is possible as nobody can see into the future to see how an organ will affect the recipiants behaviour.
    Yes, there is no effective way to divine this beforehand, so until someone invents a way to do so, the system of 'every man is equal' is sufficient.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.