Turn on thread page Beta
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Amazing)
    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.
    I wasn't talking about who gets priority over a donated organ...that is a matter for the doctors to decide and should be based on clinical need not moral judgements...if a criminal is likely to die without a transplant within a month and a non-criminal has another couple of years left (during which time another organ is likely to become available) then despite the criminals past they should get priority.

    I was simply pointing out that when you're needing one you don't question it's origin, which to me makes it daft to say that if you're donating one you should have a say on it's destination...especially because you'll be dead when the event takes place.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    This is exactly what I've been arguing. The only reason I can imagine why people would be bothered what happens after they are dead is the feeling of satisfaction they'll get before they die that what they want to happen will happen.
    What about those who donate one of their kidneys/lungs whilst still alive?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amazing)
    What about those who donate one of their kidneys/lungs whilst still alive?
    Well, they mostly do it so that they can see a loved one (cos it is usually family this happens with) stay alive and have a chance of a healthy life.

    People saying that they wouldn't want their organs to go to certain types of people, criminals etc - don't forget that some people will be better matches than others. Is it a good idea to transplant an organ into a "good" person who is a poor match, thus increasing the likelihood that it will be rejected, have to be removed and thus wasted, or to give it to a "bad" person who will benefit from it and is less likely to reject? What's the point in specifying who your organs are given to if they're not going to work in the person you want them to go to?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Helenia)
    Well, they mostly do it so that they can see a loved one (cos it is usually family this happens with) stay alive and have a chance of a healthy life.

    People saying that they wouldn't want their organs to go to certain types of people, criminals etc - don't forget that some people will be better matches than others. Is it a good idea to transplant an organ into a "good" person who is a poor match, thus increasing the likelihood that it will be rejected, have to be removed and thus wasted, or to give it to a "bad" person who will benefit from it and is less likely to reject? What's the point in specifying who your organs are given to if they're not going to work in the person you want them to go to?
    I realise that, but how many people who already decide to donate their organs, would actually decide to only make them available to certain types of people? I mean, the people now who are kind enough to ask for their organs to be used after they die, would not be the sort of people who would set such conditions on the use of their organs. It'd just get a couple of more organs freed from those who otherwise wouldn't want to donate; I imagine such a scheme would lead to an increase in the numbers of donors all round with donations with no strings attatched would stay the same.

    Personally I wouldn't ever want to set any conditions on the use of my organs after I'm dead - being dead and all - and I tend to dislike people who refuse to allow their organs to be taken if it's not for religious reasons. I just think this sort of thing would lead to more organs being made available, even if some of them had various restrictions. Saying that, the idea of compelling everybody to become a donor unless they specifically state otherwise sounds a lot better to me.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Dependant on the crime.

    The worst of crimes should be excluded from transplants.

    But donations should be automatic unless otherwise stated.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ToshTrent)
    Dependant on the crime.

    The worst of crimes should be excluded from transplants.

    But donations should be automatic unless otherwise stated.
    Are you an advocate of capital punishment for particular crimes? What you proposed can, in the right circumstances be effectively the same.

    If capital punishment is unacceptable, then all arguments about how criminals deserve a lower priority when waiting for organs are flawed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i'm an organ donor myself and dont care who goes to coz i'll be dead, and generally you dont just give out an organ, you give as much as they can take, so the chances to go to a criminal are small anyway if that worries you that much
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    i think when someone become san organ donor they want to save someones life or improve the quality of life..
    I would say it's not for us to decide who recieves it or not(p.s. i'm an organ donor..)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    ok you want to improve the quality of someones life, so why should someone who's done the complete opposite and ruined a lives be helped?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ToshTrent)
    ok you want to improve the quality of someones life, so why should someone who's done the complete opposite and ruined a lives be helped?
    How am i meant to judge whether that person hasn't suffered from the consequences of someone making their quality of life so poor that they have to commit such a crime??
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    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
    My thoughts exactly. And there is also the case of those who have been wrongly accused.
 
 
 

1,068

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
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.