Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think organ transplants should be privatized.

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.

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.

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.

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

True.

Though I can settle for "most things".

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.

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.

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.