The 12th Commandment Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Really? They can't say no? What, is someone holding a gun to their heads? If being poor automatically equals "can't say no", then I suppose a poor person "can't say no" to a job flipping burgers. After all, it's dangling money in front of a poor person, right? Damn those fast food joints, offering jobs to people and whatnot. It's criminal. Last time I looked McDonalds was still open and if there's a crisis involving a lack of workers in the burger flipping business I hadn't heard about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 So you'd ban people from making their own decisions?If you want to donate your organs who is stopping you? What we are talking about is what products will be allowed into the legal marketplace. Not to mention, it would alleviate the organ shortage (supply and demand, Econ 101).So would mandating organ donor status on everyone. Should we do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 So would mandating organ donor status on everyone. Should we do that?No more than we should forbid it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Really? They can't say no? What, is someone holding a gun to their heads? If being poor automatically equals "can't say no", then I suppose a poor person "can't say no" to a job flipping burgers. After all, it's dangling money in front of a poor person, right? Damn those fast food joints, offering jobs to people and whatnot. It's criminal. If we were talking exclusively about the US you might have a point. However those people you consider poor on the global scale aren't doing so bad. The people that "can't say no" are the worlds poor that are completely disenfranchised and absolutely desperate with no promise of seeing tomorrow. Just to show you the level of disconnect we're talking about: You mention "a job flipping burger" which in the US pays 7.25 an HOUR. Over 2 billion people on this planet live on less than 2 dollars a DAY.---------- Post added February-28th-2011 at 12:26 AM ---------- No more than we should forbid it. But it would solve the shortage! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 But it would solve the shortage!But it violates natural rights. The fact that the shortage would be solved is just ONE reason why people should be allowed to sell their own organs, (Key words: their own; allowed to). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Oh, I see how people could be preyed upon. Thing is, that stuff happens NOW, even WITH organ selling illegal. So clearly the solution is to legalize it and make things worse :doh: By the way, um, organ selling is not "happening anyway" in the U.S. At least not with legitimate physicians. Hold on. Let's say she had a choice - either move into your house and not see her kids for years, or give up a kidney. Either one would provide her with the money she needed to provide for her family for years. The latter involves her actually being there. Who are you to tell her that it shouldn't be an option? Who am I? I am a person with a conscience who doesn't think it's right to take advantage of people. You're right that a gun is not physically being held to their head. Something much more important is being held over them: the lives of their loved ones. Just because someone isn't physically forced to do something doesn't mean they have a fair choice in front of them. If you ever have had the experience of dealing with truly, truly desperate people, you will understand why this isn't as cut and dried as you guys are trying to make this out to be... If being poor automatically equals "can't say no", then I suppose a poor person "can't say no" to a job flipping burgers. After all, it's dangling money in front of a poor person, right? Damn those fast food joints, offering jobs to people and whatnot. It's criminal. Absolutely horrible comparison. Offering a desperate individual a job at McDonalds is not even in the same stratosphere as offering, for monetary reward, to take a body part from someone and place them at serious physical risk of complications and even death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 So people don't have the right to do what they want with their own body. How paternalistic. And legalizing alcohol sure made Mafia violence worse...oh wait, no it didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 So people don't have the right to do what they want with their own body. How paternalistic.And legalizing alcohol sure made Mafia violence worse...oh wait, no it didn't. Alright, I'm done here. You don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 It's easy to say allow people to donate organs for money, but donors have a good chance of having post surgery complications. This is not alcohol and prohibition we're dealing with. It's peoples ****ing well being, come on. Enjoy telling a poor person who sells a lobe of his liver only to have biliary complications that the money he got from selling is going right back into his treatment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Alright, I'm done here. You don't get it.No, you don't get it. And you know what, maybe there should be a waiver. But just banning it won't help things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 No, you don't get it. And you know what, maybe there should be a waiver. But just banning it won't help things. You're being naive. All kinds of bad things happen in the world. We do our best to minimize them while pragmatically accepting that some do occur. If you can make an argument that legalizing it would decrease those occurrences then do so, otherwise you're just being argumentative for it's own sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 But it violates natural rights. The fact that the shortage would be solved is just ONE reason why people should be allowed to sell their own organs, (Key words: their own; allowed to). Are you arguing that corpses have natural rights? ---------- Post added February-28th-2011 at 02:43 AM ---------- So people don't have the right to do what they want with their own body. How paternalistic.And legalizing alcohol sure made Mafia violence worse...oh wait, no it didn't. Equating organs to liquor is not a convincing argument. ---------- Post added February-28th-2011 at 02:44 AM ---------- No, you don't get it. And you know what, maybe there should be a waiver. But just banning it won't help things. Banning it won't help what exactly? First of all no one is "banning it" it's been banned for a long time no so nothing changes. Secondly, to use your own misguided analogy there hasn't been an organized crime swell as a result to the current situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 You know what, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 It's easy to say allow people to donate organs for money, but donors have a good chance of having post surgery complications. This is not alcohol and prohibition we're dealing with. It's peoples ****ing well being, come on. Enjoy telling a poor person who sells a lobe of his liver only to have biliary complications that the money he got from selling is going right back into his treatment. In the 1970's and 80's we actually had ethics involved in organ donors. We had wait lists and we denied drunks and poor candidates based solely upon the likelyhood of a meaningful recovery and the expected quality of life such a proceedure could deliver. What we might call the good old days. Saddly that's not the case any longer. Today active drunks like Mickey Mantal who was an extremely poor candidate for a transplant was moved to the top of the transplant list solely because of his finances and name recognition. Dude died weeks after recieving his transplant as any first year resident could have predicted. Worse however is the fact that research has shown that the poor and the uninsured (as well as women and nonwhites) are less likely to receive a transplant at all. Your basic ethical nightmare. Conclusion? Their are no ethics involved in donor system in the modern world. That's really a lingering belief from a previous time. Today it's all about the dollar signs. The hospitals, insurance companies and doctors can make. Their is no reason what so ever to not allow folks to sell their organs other than the fact that it will cut into the doctors and hospitals profit margins. Selling is exactly what they are doing. In modern day America organ donors are entirely controled by who can pay. If ethics are involved at all it's only to decern between two candidates who both have great insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 2, 2011 Author Share Posted December 2, 2011 Woot Cancer Patients Win Bone Marrow Legal Fight Against U.S. Attorney General Cancer Patients in California and Elsewhere May Now Offer Modest Compensation for Bone Marrow Donors Nearly 3,000 Americans Die Each Year Waiting to Find a Bone Marrow Donor Match, Minorities Hit Hardest by Lack of Donors http://ij.org/about/4200 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar78 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 For a different perspective, my uncle is suffering from kidney failure and needs a transplant bad. He's the youngest so his siblings are in their 60s and not ideal donors, risk for the donor and risk that the organ would not last very long. We are first generations immigrants, so we still have family in the old country and apparently they are looking for donors there. It's not a rich country, so the siblings have to provide some financial incentive to make it happen. It's an interesting approach to say the least and I don't really see what's wrong with buying organs that can be spared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.T.real,lights,out Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Heard this super painfulllllllll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 So people don't have the right to do what they want with their own body. How paternalistic. Not when they demand and expect free health care after they abused their own bodies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 sounds like the right decision was made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Some day even after break thru after break thru, with adult stems cells, will come a time when a sick patient can just take a grape flavored pill and grow a pair of kidneys, etc to replace diseased once if not care the major diseases altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 For a different perspective, my uncle is suffering from kidney failure and needs a transplant bad. He's the youngest so his siblings are in their 60s and not ideal donors, risk for the donor and risk that the organ would not last very long. We are first generations immigrants, so we still have family in the old country and apparently they are looking for donors there. It's not a rich country, so the siblings have to provide some financial incentive to make it happen. It's an interesting approach to say the least and I don't really see what's wrong with buying organs that can be spared. Spared? None of our organs can be spared though we can live without several. You make it sound like cutting off a fingernail. Losing a kidney or part of your liver puts you at risk for all kinds of trouble later in your own life. We have two kidneys because one really isn't enough. My liver has been a true and steady hardworking companion, I would never part with part of him. That said, if it's going to happen anyway it might as well benefit someone you know on both sides of the equation. At least in that case the donor is doing something beyond just collecting a paycheck. The straight up cash for organs for rich guys for no other reason than they have the money is evil, IMO, but then again so are a lot of people. Things that grow back, like bone marrow, is a different animal. It's the same as giving blood - just more dangerous and painful. It's all a matter of risk versus reward and my biggest concern is that the donors often times don't have any concept of the risk. In real estate valuation, for example, a transaction isn't considered useful for comparison purposes if the buyer or seller were not fully informed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointyfootball Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Good to hear this update. Not sure if it will change people being willing to donate or not, but I certainly hope so. I'm in the bone marrow donor database, and I'm not sure I'd be able to say "no" if they said I was a match for someone. ---------- Post added December-2nd-2011 at 10:28 AM ---------- Heard this super painfulllllllll For some it is, but for most it is not bad at all. Certainly no where near what the recipient is going through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Good!..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Reading this thread kinda makes me wonder... ACW, do you support the right of expectant mothers to sell their babies rather than just "giving them up" for adoption? (a contract entered into during pregnancy to have the baby and immediately hand it over to someone else to be the legal guardian, permanently relinquishing all rights as a parent - assuming controls against pedophiles. Just normal married couples who want a baby) There is a black market for it. And if a woman knew she would make say $20k, she might decide to do that rather than get an abortion, right? It would certainly alleviate the shortage of "healthy white babies" for which there is a very long wait list. The adoption companies and doctors and nurses are all making money, why not the mother? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 2, 2011 Author Share Posted December 2, 2011 Bliz....Why not? There is of course the matter of the child being a individual,but isn't that basically what adoption is? You are simply obtaining the custody right to raise the child(and the legal obligations) from the govt instead of the actual parent in that case. http://www.thelivingweb.net/cash_eggs_sperm_plasma_hair.html add As usual the father has no rights in your example Would the mother selling the child release the father, or simply transfer,the child support obligation in that case? add http://forum.freeadvice.com/child-custody-visitation-37/can-you-sell-judgement-child-support-arrears-68753.html Can you sell a child support judgement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.