Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr White)
    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.
    Whilst obviously somewhat flawed this is truely the only system which is implamentable in current times.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daveo)
    Whilst obviously somewhat flawed this is truely the only system which is implamentable in current times.
    It's not ideal, but there's little that can be done to improve it. Moral decisions are always impossible to make.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think we are allowed to choose.

    But given a choice, I would choose not to donate to a criminal who commited hideous crimes. I mean if he is cruel enough to maliciously injured others, causing grievious bodily harm to another, why should he deserve the organs? So that he can go hurt others again? I definitely wouldn't want to give a person who don't know how to appreciate.

    As for racial and religion issue, I don't find it an issue, all should be treated fair & equal.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Oh yes, just something additional to let you guys know.

    I know chinese have a local saying that if you donate your organs out, you will not rest in peace. The reason being that you don't have a full corpse when you die and henceforth you will be humilated in hell.

    Maybe you will not be reincarnated.

    Basically, you will be the lowest grade of spirits when you die.

    Also, there are sayings that when you inherit organs of others, you will tend to have weird visions. It is link to the fact that the organs contain memories of its previous owners and it is sometimes said that their spirits are still being trapped inside.

    Of course, the above are just hear say... hope it doesn't discourage anyone from doing such a noble deed.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Maybe if it was assumed that everyone was willing to donate their organs unless they specified otherwise there wouldn't be such a shortage, and there would be enough to go around for everyone - criminals included.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alocin)
    Maybe if it was assumed that everyone was willing to donate their organs unless they specified otherwise there wouldn't be such a shortage, and there would be enough to go around for everyone - criminals included.
    That was what my country did. Everyone at 21 was being sent a form stating that they will donate their organs when they die. If they strongly opposed, they are to mail their reply slip/form back to the Ministry of Health.

    Alot of people are just too lazy to fill up the neccessary documents and undertake the hassle of mailing, hence, it ended up that most people agree to donate their organs.
    Offline

    3
    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?
    Seems fair enough to me. It's "YOUR" organ isn't it? I don't see why "YOU" shouldn't be able to specify who can and cannot have the benefit of it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Seems fair enough to me. It's "YOUR" organ isn't it? I don't see why "YOU" shouldn't be able to specify who can and cannot have the benefit of it.
    Do you think that it should include not donating to people of a different race?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    Do you think that it should include not donating to people of a different race?
    If someone wants to be a racist prick about it then that's their business.

    I'm sure the majority of folks (probably 99.999999%) who are of the mind to donate an organ really couldn't give two hoots who's body their heart ultimately ends up in.

    However, in my opinion, the organ belongs to the donor and the donor should be allowed to decide who is to benefit/isn't to benefit from their organ.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    their organ, their choice
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I thought it was funny when i found out that the only people in the United States that have free universal medicare are federal prisoners
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think people should always have the right to know where they're organs are going, and they should be informed fully beforehand. Yes some people may be discriminatory and we should try stamping that out but the option should always be there.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    Well generally you're dead when you're being a donor aren't you? So you could say, why would you care who it went to? Much simpler to make it so a donor has no input into who gets the organs, thereby negating any trouble that might be caused by people picking and choosing based on prejudices.
    Yes, but by that rationale why should you care who gets your estate when you die? Your son/daughter or some unknown person in the next town?
    Offline

    0
    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?
    It doesnt matter whether they are criminals or not- i think that people shouldnt be allowed to choose. Even if they did, who would allow their organs to be donated to criminals anyway? People may die because of this, even if they are criminals :mad:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    I would say if you're bothered about someone you don't like or have something against receiving your organs, don't become a donor! Organs are different to your estate in that generally it would be useless to leave them to your offspring unless they actually needed them.
    Well, we'll agree to disagree on this issue. IMO, if you pesonally have something against people "who's eyes are too close together" then you should be able to exclude them from the benefits of your magnificant organ.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see why organs are treated any differently from material possessions or capital; why shouldn't you be able to decide who ends up with it? When we donate to charities, we do so on the understanding that it will help a justified cause that we believe should be furthered, rather than being used to fund a prisoner's medical care. When we die, intestate or not, most of our money and possessions are usually passed on to our next of kin. Surely we should be able to decide where our organs go too?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amazing)
    I don't see why organs are treated any differently from material possessions or capital; why shouldn't you be able to decide who ends up with it? When we donate to charities, we do so on the understanding that it will help a justified cause that we believe should be furthered, rather than being used to fund a prisoner's medical care. When we die, intestate or not, most of our money and possessions are usually passed on to our next of kin. Surely we should be able to decide where our organs go too?
    I agree.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    If I were in need of an organ and the only one available had come from a criminal I wouldn't turn it down.

    From that standpoint saying I would refuse to allow my organs to go to the same or another criminal would seem hypocritical.

    And although I'm a self confessed hypocrite on some issues this one isn't emotive or complicated enough to justify it.

    Wibbly wobbly logic but in conclusion I couldn't give a flying f**k what happens to my body after I'm dead - if it can help improve of prolong someone elses life, regardless of their beliefs/moral standing, the great.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    If I were in need of an organ and the only one available had come from a criminal I wouldn't turn it down.

    From that standpoint saying I would refuse to allow my organs to go to the same or another criminal would seem hypocritical.

    And although I'm a self confessed hypocrite on some issues this one isn't emotive or complicated enough to justify it.

    Wibbly wobbly logic but in conclusion I couldn't give a flying f**k what happens to my body after I'm dead - if it can help improve of prolong someone elses life, regardless of their beliefs/moral standing, the great.
    Very wibbly wobbly logic indeed. I doubt you would refuse a monetary donation from a random prisoner, but that wouldn't compel you leave half your will to any random ex-con, would it?

    Nobody is saying it's wrong for a prisoner to be given such transplants anyway, just that they shouldn't be given priority. If the only person in the area who needs an organ at the time is a criminal, then let him have it. But if there's another, crime free individual who needs one, then what is the problem in giving it to him instead? Of course, the so called "crime free individual" may well have committed far worse but undiscovered attrocities in the past, but it makes sense to assume that a criminal (convicted of a serious offence) will usually be less deserving of his life than ordinary folk.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    Magnificent organ eh?

    I suppose I have this point of view because I have issues with the whole inheritance thing, after seeing first hand siblings squabbling over inheritance before the person is even dead, talking about people's deaths as a 'nest egg'! I don't expect anything from my parents when they die; why should I, its their money. If they choose to give me some then great, if they don't then that's fine too. Its just a norm that kids get their parents' cash. I certainly don't want my future kids squabbling over who gets what when I'm dead, I would want them to earn their own way rather than rely on me to bail them out by dying! If they need bailing out I'll bail them out before I'm dead so I can keep tabs on where my cash is going.

    The whole thing about 'why should we care what happens when we're dead' seems to be a bit of a quandary. We cannot possibly be affected by what happens after we're dead, so why are we bothered about it? Is it just so we can die safe in the knowledge that something good will happen after we die, or that our organs will go to the right people? That seems incomprehensible to me.
    HaHa! That rings so true. Me and my equally unscrupulous brother have a long standing joke (and it IS just a joke) about who can be nicest to our aged granny and scoop up all that lovely cash.

    Everytime I call him and ask what his plans are he say's "Oh, think I'll just take a drive and make sure Gran is fine........and remind her how little she hears from you since you left the country"

    Little ****!
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
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.