Organ Transplants

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Storm
On the face of it, there seems to be little reason to question the ethics behind transplanting organs. But right under the surface lie a number of ethical dilemmas and controversies.

It is clear that there is a severe shortage of organs available for transplantation. There are always fewer donors than there are potential recipients. Should alcoholics be given liver transplants or should they be denied new livers because they "deserve" what has happened to them? Should a much needed heart go to a person who was a heavy smoker? Have those people forfeited their equal claim on an organ transplant?

If you have not volunteered to donate your organs, should you be eligible to receive an organ donation if you should ever need one?

This is a discussion about life and death. Who lives, who dies, and why.

Deja~vu
I used to be on the list and might do it again as well. The reason I took myself off the list is because I had heard that the medical society might not try as hard to take all the precaution's and revitalisation's seriously just for the sake of your organs.

I am thinking that what I have heard might just be some propaganda, but still I am looking into it.

Oh and people as long as they have made a change in their life style should be allowed to participate.

dadudemon
I think that if a person ends up in a bad way because of their own poor choices, they should not be allowed to get an organs. This poses a problem as it can be difficult to make a determination that an organ's failure is simply incidental and NOT related to poor health choices.

However, I think it is even easier than that. I don't care if the person has an organ failure that is found completely incidental to poor health habits. I feel that they should be disqualified regardless.

I am not a typical person. I believe that our bodies our "temples" and very precious. I believe that we should try our best to take care of them within reason. Workout, eat right, get enough sleep, avoid harmful activities, etc.

Also, with stem cell research, this entire question/thread may be moot. Hopefully, we can grow organs that are perfectly compatible with each person. Then as long as the "i didn't take care of my body" person can afford to have organs grown for them, they can buy replacement organs.

LatinoStallion
Im hoping that Stem Cell Research will help us out on this issue.



Scientists already created fresh human blood (universal type) just from stem cells, as well as a human heart. Google it.

inimalist
Organ donation should be the default. One should have to get a special card to opt out of the system.

Everyone has the right to the organs. Lifestyle should not mediate that factor. Nor, if there are two people who need a lung equally as urgently, should the smoker by default not get it. Since it is the government that administers the organ doner list, it is not allowed to discriminate against people for their legal choices.

Bardock42
I think organ transplants should be privatized.

Storm
Important steps have been taken with regard to stem cell research, and people remain excited by the possibilities of embryonic stem cells in transplantation and other areas. However, there is little prospect of an easy resolution any time soon and this also would open up a host of different ethical debates.

WrathfulDwarf
I think that there is the issue of priority. Whoever is the most sickest should get it first.

We can't really say that an alcoholic can't get a liver transplant because he deserves it. That's been bias and putting your judgement above others. I believe the best answer should be given by the donor. The organ donor should decides who should get his/her organ.

On that note...whatever happen to cloning body organs? Wasn't that one of the most ideal things to do with cloning? Seems that got thrown out the window.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Storm
Should alcoholics be given liver transplants or should they be denied new livers because they "deserve" what has happened to them? .

Alcoholics are denied livers on pragmatic not moral grounds. It's very easy to fall back into alcoholism. The risk of the donor liver going to waste because the person can't stop drinking is usually enough reason to deny it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think organ transplants should be privatized.

You think everything should be privatized.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You think everything should be privatized.

True.

Though I can settle for "most things".

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Storm
On the face of it, there seems to be little reason to question the ethics behind transplanting organs. But right under the surface lie a number of ethical dilemmas and controversies.

It is clear that there is a severe shortage of organs available for transplantation. There are always fewer donors than there are potential recipients. Should alcoholics be given liver transplants or should they be denied new livers because they "deserve" what has happened to them? Should a much needed heart go to a person who was a heavy smoker? Have those people forfeited their equal claim on an organ transplant?

If you have not volunteered to donate your organs, should you be eligible to receive an organ donation if you should ever need one?

This is a discussion about life and death. Who lives, who dies, and why.

What does this have to do with philosophy? If someone needs a new kidney or heart, they should get one.

Devil King
Originally posted by inimalist
Organ donation should be the default. One should have to get a special card to opt out of the system.

Everyone has the right to the organs. Lifestyle should not mediate that factor. Nor, if there are two people who need a lung equally as urgently, should the smoker by default not get it. Since it is the government that administers the organ doner list, it is not allowed to discriminate against people for their legal choices.

There's a bit of fascist in you yet.

chithappens
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf

On that note...whatever happen to cloning body organs? Wasn't that one of the most ideal things to do with cloning? Seems that got thrown out the window.

Well this was one the discussions people were having regarding stem cell research.

At one point it seems that they trying to simply grow a fetus without a head so that it wouldn't be "alive" and take away the moral debate of destroying life.

I have my issues with cloning simply to take the organs but I think that "public" discussion about it ended for that reason.

Evil Dead
I am not an organ donor. I believe nobody should be eligible to recieve an organ if they themselves are not a donor, myself included. I'm not afraid to die.

I disagree with organ transplantation at it's fundamental basis. I'm pro-natural selection. As our species becomes more technological, allowing for longer lives.....it weakens. Those who naturally should not live to reproduce do. I'm a firm believer in the kid that eats too many paint chips doesn't grow up to have kids of his own. If you're a smoker.....no new lungs for you. I myself smoke and would not expect a new lung. It's of my own doing. If you're just born with bad genetics.......sorry. That's life. If it wasn't for technological advancement, those poor genetics may have resulted in one or both of your parents to have died before you were born. Be thankful for the life you have lived thus far.

each and every case of a person in need of an organ transplant is going to be sad when viewed alone. I feel sympathy for these people. Some times bad things happen to good people but as the old addage goes, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

Deja~vu
Interesting view. How do you feel about medications?

Evil Dead
I have a seemingly contradictory stance when it comes to medication. I believe it along with vaccinations are indeed necissary for our species to exist today at the same technological/cultural level we have achieved. We have altered this planet so much in our rise that we have made it almost impossible for our species to exist in great enough numbers to preserve the culture we have already built and continue forward. Sure, our species could be drasticly reduced in number and our future stock would be a hell of a lot better for it biologicly but that's a HUGE tradeoff. We would have to give up this industrial civilization we have today aswell as our future advancement on the same path we have already started.

I like a happy medium. We can lose a few thousand, few hundred thousand a year for extreme cases no problem.......but when something as minor as a flue epidemic, TB or polio can ravage our species millions at a time year after year, we have no hope to progress what we have started.

WrathfulDwarf
I'm going back to the thread because now we're engaging on "consequences" more than ethics.

See, if we begin to say "why do you deserve an organ transplant" then why stop there?

You were at work...you break a bone....oh well, then it's your fault. You don't get a treatment because you probably were careless. It will heal on it's own. Why should we (i.e. employer) pay for your stupidity?

Or...

You were expose to toxic chemicals at work.

Oh well, it was probably your fault. You should have gotten another job. Despite the fact that it's hard to get job and you have to put food on the table for the family.


On the other side of the coin....

Should Tobacco companies flip the bill for patients that need lungs transplants...after all..their products put them in the operating room.

But we all know Tobacco companies...they will hired some lab geek and claim their products aren't responsible. And then say it was the persons fault. He is responsible for his own doing.

Deja~vu
As of tonight I'm thinking, if you can afford it then why not.

Don't ask me what I'll think tomorrow...lol

Grand_Moff_Gav
This is a difficult issue I think.

I personally think the idea of an "opt out" system is unacceptable, it has to be "opt in" or else your loosing control of your own body and handing it over to the state- organ donation must always be on the donor's hands.

Yet, I don't like the idea of having to give up a kidney or when I'm dead having my heart taking away...but there is no rational reason for it...and as a Christian I think its a bit selfish not to be ready to give up my organs...I don't know though, if I could give my kidney to save a life them I really should.

FoxMeister
Organ Transplants: For the faint hearted

Evil Dead
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
This is a difficult issue I think.

I personally think the idea of an "opt out" system is unacceptable, it has to be "opt in" or else your loosing control of your own body and handing it over to the state- organ donation must always be on the donor's hands.

Yet, I don't like the idea of having to give up a kidney or when I'm dead having my heart taking away...but there is no rational reason for it...and as a Christian I think its a bit selfish not to be ready to give up my organs...I don't know though, if I could give my kidney to save a life them I really should.

but as a Christian, don't you believe your god has given each person the organs he intended them to have? If your god wanted that person's life saved, their organs would not be failing. Every single thing that lives, dies. If a god does indeed exist, why mess with it's handywork and let every living thing die a natural death when it's time comes.

xmarksthespot
I don't know how relevant it is but did anyone see this in the news?

I don't think an opt-out system is feasible nor ethical, and it would probably be a bureaucratic and legal mess waiting to happen.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.