Should non-organ Donors be Given Organs??

a reply to: LookingForABetterLife

Well, that's something I had not thought of before. But your selling it wrong. Your condemning organ donors over non donors... Though I understand the logic behind it... Still... That might make some change ideas about organs donation.

As for the rest, I'll send you a PM so as to not derail the thread.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Interesting question.

I'll say it this way. I'd have zero respect for anyone in the medical profession who even considered that in their thinking.

To deny a transplant to anyone for that reason would just be a form of vengeance and a sign of bad character IMO. We have enough bigotry in society these days, without the medical profession exhibiting another type.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Great question!!

I love these!!!

Honestly I think we could set it up where there was a pool only organ donors accessed.. and it would prob get everyone to play ball

a reply to: Blaine91555

Everytime a transplant is done they are denying some one a transplant.. it is a zero sum game .. we have more needed than available right?

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Yea im in the states and i dont know if its true or not ... id like to think no but it shure as hell made me think

And in the states they know its on ur id card if u are or not

Im not exactly knolaged in the subject but id assume in places with free health care it dosent work the same seeing as there wouldent be a pricetag on the organs like there is in the usa

originally posted by: NowanKenubi
a reply to: LookingForABetterLife

Well, that's something I had not thought of before. But your selling it wrong. Your condemning organ donors over non donors... Though I understand the logic behind it... Still... That might make some change ideas about organs donation.

As for the rest, I'll send you a PM so as to not derail the thread.

Given the situation, that was the best answer I could give. Now if one of the men does not donate due to religious reasons that would expand the debate over who gets the heart.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Nobody should have the right to grant life or death based on a bias. It should be on a first come first serve basis to avoid that.

I know it's likely a tough choice at times and there are factors like imminent need that would be justification, but to deny it because they chose to not be a donor, is just wrong. It would amount to a death sentence for not wanting to be a donor. If that's not bigotry being expressed, I don't know what would be.

a reply to: 83Liberty

I think you are asking the wrong question because the scenario of two different people having the exact same transplant requirements at the exact same time is probably impossible.

It's really not

And in any case the situation is hypocritical just to provide context for the discussion

a reply to: LookingForABetterLife

Ah religion!

Now that should really complicate matters. LoL

Why not fling in ethnicity, colour and creed also not to forget social status?

Because they are also global variables that effect whether or not there is an organ to be had whether we relies the fact or otherwise.

a reply to: andy06shake

I didn't want to add too many more variable as it would make it too hard for me to think about. lol

a reply to: LookingForABetterLife

To quick for me, see my edit above. LoL

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

You actually made me think I'm going to become a donor , If I die but my life force is still kicking inside my organs for a bit and I donate that means part of me keeps living.

a reply to: Gargoyle91

Technically we are all made of stardust.

And when you die and are buried/cremated your atoms are in a sense returned to the Earth which is alive and also comprised of the same stardust.

Quite the cosmic cycle really.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: schuyler
Practically speaking, it doesn't make much sense. People who need organs are usually not in a position to donate. They're too sick or too old. Their bodies are compromise. You want to make decisions based on your philosophical stance. That's ethically questionable right there.

From the OP

Now yes I know that for some people due to their specific condition they may just have never been able to get on the donor register and yes I also know that Medical need should come first.

I also expand on it further.

Not wanting to sound argumentative but I do wonder if the people posting this are responding to the title or the OP.

We are responding to the idea of limiting donations to people who donate, whether it is on your title or the body of your post, and whether or not you have compromised your own ideas in an attempt to touch all bases. If a guy is too sick, he can't donate. Well, if someone needs an organ, is he not sick? Do people who are not sick need an organ? Of course not, so that's everybody, right? If you;re going to say, "Now yes I know that for some people due to their specific condition they may just have never been able to get on the donor register and yes I also know that Medical need should come first" then what is there left to discuss?

The idea of limiting donations to those who will donate is NOT going to fly anywhere in the medical profession. It is adding an unreasonable requirement for getting a donation. in fact, from a medical ethics standpoint, it is an outrageous suggestion. To your question, "Should non organ donors be given organs?" the answer is an unequivocal YES.

I hope now that's clear enough for you.

I don't want to be an organ donor and I don't want anyone
else's organs inside of me either.I am getting old and my
parts are slowing down and not working as well as they
used to.

a reply to: Mikehawk

Ty.I was going to respond in much the same way.I would not wish my liver on anyone.It is all my own doing however.

a reply to: mamabeth

Happens to us all, entropy must increase inside a closed system, organs and limbs wear out, cells get tired dividing.

But what if it did not have to be that way?

Take jellyfish for instance(Turritopsis doohmii) they are for all intents and purpose immortal, same with waterbears(Tardigrade).

Point is immortality of a fashion might be just around the corner, but it wont be for all of us.

More division?

Awesome bro!

/sarcasm

If you don't give to the local fire department and your neighbor does. And a wild fire comes close to both homes do they save his and not yours?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Doctors and medical services should not discriminate who they help.

After all i think somewhere in the Hippocratic Oath it states "I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment".

I wholeheartedly agree with your post