NationStates Jolt Archive

One of the main problems facing our hospitals today is a lack of organs -- patients are dying because there are insufficient hearts, livers, or kidneys. Sadly, these precious organs can be found rotting beneath the ground, providing nutrition for various insects. As a society, we cannot accept the fact that so many people are dying painful, torturous deaths simply because organs could not be harvested from the recently deceased. It's simple: the dead don't need a heart, but those who serious heart problems do. Unfortunately, arcane religious beliefs may sometimes get in the way of saving lives; crazy zealots may believe that to go to heaven, they must first allow a man to die for lack of a transplant (or, as they would say it, have a full body). However, the first amendment ostensibly prevents the church from interfering with matter of the state. So the question arises: to whom does a dead body belong? Certainly no one can claim ownership to it but the state; it is an object, not a sentient being. Even if the body does belong to the family, we should not be squeamish in forcibly wrenching the body from their control and donating it to medical science for the purpose of allowing a sick man to live. The right to life must take priority over the right to throw a useful resource away. Our greatest concern must be with saving lives, not allowing some fanatics to kill by inaction by throwing a useful organ in the garbage.

Additionally, we should employ the dead body to its fullest potential. It's not doing anybody any good by decomposing several feet under the surface of the earth, but it can be better utilized in other manners. After extracting all the necessary organs, we should proceed to make use of the muscles and other comestible body parts. The state should create an animal feed made out of humans, to be sold cheaply to farmers. This has the primary benefit of allowing the farmers to feed their animals in a more cost-effective manner, but it also has a secondary benefit. If farmers are less reliant on animal meats and the like to nourish their livestock, then those foods can be sold to consumers, thus slightly alleviating the problem of insufficient food.

This country was built upon efficiency and the proper and equitable allocation of resources; we should continue upon that tradition. A formerly untapped resource can now be exploited for the noble goals of saving lives and feeding animals, all at a benefit to the consumer. It may sound slightly dark and grotesque, but it's progress, and we must go forward with it.

One of the main problems facing our hospitals today is a lack of organs -- patients are dying because there are insufficient hearts, livers, or kidneys. Sadly, these precious organs can be found rotting beneath the ground, providing nutrition for various insects. As a society, we cannot accept the fact that so many people are dying painful, torturous deaths simply because organs could not be harvested from the recently deceased. It's simple: the dead don't need a heart, but those who serious heart problems do.



hear hear!


Additionally, we should employ the dead body to its fullest potential. After extracting all the necessary organs, we should proceed to make use of the muscles and other comestible body parts. The state should create an animal feed made out of humans, to be sold cheaply to farmers.

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

It's up to the wishes of the deceased, really. If they say in their will "fair enough", then fair enough. If not, they didn't want their organs taken. And you should respect such choices.

And with the food issue - that means that people will, essentially, be eating dead human bodies - which are often ridden with disease. That's not going to be good. US beef is already utter crap due to the growth hormones injected into it, if you factor in dead bodies, nowhere on earth will buy it at all.

Oh and no, the US is not an efficient place at all. You are so wrong.

I agree that there is a problem, but I disagree with your way of solving it. I think there should be a lot more advertisement of doner cards and just generally more encouragement for it.

I completely disagree with digging up somones grave and removing their organs without consent from the person before he died or the family, especially whith people whose culture or religious beliefs give a duty to respect the dead.

If the problem was more serious, then I may reconsider my views. However the problem is not that serious thankfully.

-snip-

If only it wasn't for those pesky human rights getting in the way of everything!

I agree with most of what you're saying. But unfortunately society finds turning dead human bodies into a form of commodity rather unsettling. Personally I think the state should use the body as a valuable resource, unless the individual states in his/her will that he/she does not want their organs or body harvested. So state encouragement for organ donation should be higher.

How about we get rid of those archaic religious beliefs that don't allow scientists to clone human organs?

If only it wasn't for those pesky human rights getting in the way of everything!

Those pesky human rights? How about the right to life? Have you ever considered that right? Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, such a pivotal right would trump the right to throw some precious organs in the garbage can? If you want people to die rather than allow them to have an organ transplant, then you are the one who doesn't care for human rights.

http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/6127/soylent0ci.jpg

It's up to the wishes of the deceased, really.

After they're dead, why should they have a say in what happens to their body? It can either be used to save lives or it can be left to rot. How, in any way whatsoever, would the latter be the correct course of action? By making that choice, you're condemning people to death because you want to "respect the wishes" of an arrogant prick who wants to let people die. I don't. I'd rather save lives than take them.

http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/6127/soylent0ci.jpg
roflmao

Those pesky human rights? How about the right to life? Tsk, tsk. If you're going to do a Swiftian troll you have to maintain the fiction far past the first page of replies. Jonathan would be so disappointed.

After they're dead, why should they have a say in what happens to their body? It can either be used to save lives or it can be left to rot. How, in any way whatsoever, would the latter be the correct course of action? By making that choice, you're condemning people to death because you want to "respect the wishes" of an arrogant prick who wants to let people die. I don't. I'd rather save lives than take them.

If you'd rather save lives than take them, do you support stem cell research?

How about we get rid of those archaic religious beliefs that don't allow scientists to clone human organs?

Have human organs been successfully cloned in any country in the world, in a cost-effective manner?

Have human organs been successfully cloned in any country in the world, in a cost-effective manner?

Not quite yet, but it would be a much better solution than body-snatching.(from a human-rights standpoint)

Not only is the idea of feeding corpses to farm animals disgusting, it would breed wild new diseases for us to contend with. Farm animals by and large are not carnivores, nor are they detritivores.

Mad cow disease was born of feeding cows other dead cows. Do we really want to see what we can cook up by feeding cows dead humans?

Secondly, a body does not have rights, correct, but the family of the deceased does. I can't imagine many people want to see their beloved grandfather ground up and turned into cow meal.

I'm not surprised by your utter callousness.

Additionally, we should employ the dead body to its fullest potential.

MY_PEOPLE_USE_EVERY_PART_OF_THE_CADAVER!!!
Or else.

Tsk, tsk. If you're going to do a Swiftian troll you have to maintain the fiction far past the first page of replies. Jonathan would be so disappointed.

You really don't get it, do you? I'll make this really easy for you: you can either use an organ to save a life or you can bury it beneath the earth, never to be used again. One method would save a life, and the other would condemn somebody to death. Any human would be disappointed at your stupidity if you cannot understand so simple a proposition.

If you'd rather save lives than take them, do you support stem cell research?

It depends on the type of research. I support any type of research in which the baby does not have a chance to enter the second trimester.

After they're dead, why should they have a say in what happens to their body? It can either be used to save lives or it can be left to rot. How, in any way whatsoever, would the latter be the correct course of action? By making that choice, you're condemning people to death because you want to "respect the wishes" of an arrogant prick who wants to let people die. I don't. I'd rather save lives than take them.if the state seized my loved ones organs i would hunt down and kill the recipients for they are abominations whom have stolen chunks of my loved ones. they have no right to live at the expense of my dead family members wholeness. its not the states right to desecrate the remains of our ancestors nor is it the sicks right to steal the flesh of the dead.

It depends on the type of research. I support any type of research in which the baby does not have a chance to enter the second trimester.

But doesnt that go against the right to life?

After they're dead, why should they have a say in what happens to their body? It can either be used to save lives or it can be left to rot. How, in any way whatsoever, would the latter be the correct course of action? By making that choice, you're condemning people to death because you want to "respect the wishes" of an arrogant prick who wants to let people die. I don't. I'd rather save lives than take them.

If I had a diamond, and in my will I said that I want this diamond to be kept in a safe never to come out, the government would never be allowed to take that from him as it his diamond and he has the right to do what he wishes with it. The same applies to his body, whom he owns and has the right to decide what is done with it.

After they're dead, why should they have a say in what happens to their body?
Because it was a choice that they made when they were alive, and as their choice it should be respected in the same manner as any other choice they made when alive?
It can either be used to save lives or it can be left to rot.
That's rather a narrow-minded view on things, no?

Why not let people rot, but not in caskets?

Then, we can use the dead as fertiliser - genius, no?
How, in any way whatsoever, would the latter be the correct course of action?
The thing about people is that we often don't go for the 'correct' course of action, we go with what we want to do. If someone wants to leave their organs inside them, then such choices should be respected.
By making that choice, you're condemning people to death because you want to "respect the wishes" of an arrogant prick who wants to let people die. I don't. I'd rather save lives than take them.
That's your own view on the situation. Not everyone's. And your own circumstances aren't the same as those of others, so you can't really speak for them.

When I have to write a will, I'll donate my body's organs, but that is my own choice. I don't think I'll carry a donor card (let the NHS view me as spare parts) and I dunno if any of my organs will be of much use to anyone, but that option will be there.

That's my own choice, and I can respect the choices of anyone who disagrees with that viewpoint - because they're making their own judgement on the situation.

Mad cow disease was born of feeding cows other dead cows. Do we really want to see what we can cook up by feeding cows dead humans?

Yes, it was wrong to feed cows dead cows because that would be an act of cannibalism, which often has detrimental health effects. However, there would be nothing wrong with feeding a cow a dead human any more than it would be an error to feed them a dead pig.

I'm not surprised by your utter callousness.

I care more about the living than the dead; does that make me callous? I want to save the lives of the sick rather than allow them to die; does that make me callous?

But doesnt that go against the right to life?

So does washing my hands with anti-bacterial soap. I only consider the right to life when dealing with sentient specimens which can accurately interpret various emotions and have a desire to live.

MY_PEOPLE_USE_EVERY_PART_OF_THE_CADAVER!!!
Or else.

DON'T-TELL-ME-YOU-ACTUALLY-CALL-THAT-THING-UP-THERE-A-SCROLL-BAR-OF-DOOM

If I had a diamond, and in my will I said that I want this diamond to be kept in a safe never to come out, the government would never be allowed to take that from him as it his diamond and he has the right to do what he wishes with it. The same applies to his body, whom he owns and has the right to decide what is done with it.

Let's extend that. Let's say that someone created a magical potion, which would cure cancer. However, in his will, that man stated that he wished his concoction to be utterly destroyed because he wanted to cause as much pain and suffering as possible. Would you follow the will of the dead man or would you save the lives of the sick? The choice is quite obvious to me. I'm not a killer -- I care about living, breathing people more than I care about decaying corpses.

Hm, I have a compromise. Just take the bodies of the wothless slaves. The bodies are property of the owners, so they could use it! The rich important people can be burried in one piece, though.

And if there aren't enough dead slaves - well, then let's make some! I'm sure they would be happy to give their life for their master, so he can have a new heart, or feed his cows.

DON'T-TELL-ME-YOU-ACTUALLY-CALL-THAT-THING-UP-THERE-A-SCROLL-BAR-OF-DOOM

WHY ARE YOU TALKING LIKE THIS?

SPAM.

I urge you to stop spamming. Please.

if the state seized my loved ones organs i would hunt down and kill the recipients for they are abominations whom have stolen chunks of my loved ones. they have no right to live at the expense of my dead family members wholeness. its not the states right to desecrate the remains of our ancestors nor is it the sicks right to steal the flesh of the dead.

You'd not only just allow a person to die, but you'd actually kill someone over a useless piece of rotting flesh? :eek:



I care more about the living than the dead; does that make me callous? I want to save the lives of the sick rather than allow them to die; does that make me callous?

Absolutely not.

Yes, it was wrong to feed cows dead cows because that would be an act of cannibalism, which often has detrimental health effects. However, there would be nothing wrong with feeding a cow a dead human any more than it would be an error to feed them a dead pig.
Are you quite sure?

If you share enough genes between species', then if any kind of meat involved is undercooked, you are going to have massive problems.

If a cow eats the undercooked meat of pretty much any other land-based mammal, it's going to have serious problems. Pig, human, whatever. It'd all infect a cow if given a chance.

If you ate undercooked pig, you might get Botchelism. If you ate undercooked Bonobo Monkey, who knows what diseases you might get.

This country was built upon efficiency and the proper and equitable allocation of resources; we should continue upon that tradition.
Really now? Which country are you talking about?

Besides, your crazy post reminds me of a bastard child of these two:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Scarecrow.jpghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Tin-Man.jpg

Is that where your desire for organ harvesting originates from?

I urge you to stop spamming. Please.

okay. just wanted to let you know how little your threads are worth.

t's simple: the dead don't need a heart, but those who serious heart problems do. Unfortunately, arcane religious beliefs may sometimes get in the way of saving lives; crazy zealots may believe that to go to heaven, they must first allow a man to die for lack of a transplant (or, as they would say it, have a full body). However, the first amendment ostensibly prevents the church from interfering with matter of the state. So the question arises: to whom does a dead body belong? Certainly no one can claim ownership to it but the state; it is an object, not a sentient being.
.

Here's the beauty of the First Amendment: It swings both ways. Religion stays out of government, government stays out of religion. It's not a one way thing.

Can someone clarify the difference between harvesting organs and filling a corspe with preservatives or burning it? Why is one morally acceptable and the other not?

You'd not only just allow a person to die, but you'd actually kill someone over a useless piece of rotting flesh? :eek:



of course the dead flesh of my kin is sacred, what are the pathetic mewings of the diseased stranger to that. their organs no longer function, therefore they will die, that is nature's way. they have no claim on the organs of another living or dead.

what's next executions on demand for organ harvesting like its rumored they do in china, then more and more crimes made capital until we are executing people for traffic tickets inorder to keep the old and wealthy alive. perhaps an organ draft, where the young are forced by the state to give up their "extra" kidneys and lungs to save their greedy elders.

Can someone clarify the difference between harvesting organs and filling a corspe with preservatives or burning it? Why is one morally acceptable and the other not?

Religious beliefs mostly. Some groups believe that the body must be whole, or that certain practices must be done when burying/cremating the body in order for that person to reach heaven.

Here's the beauty of the First Amendment: It swings both ways. Religion stays out of government, government stays out of religion. It's not a one way thing.
and if anything its more of a prohibition of the government interferring with religion... like burial rituals and such.

of course the dead flesh of my kin is sacred, what are the pathetic mewings of the diseased stranger to that. their organs no longer function, therefore they will die, that is nature's way. they have no claim on the organs of another living or dead.

what's next executions on demand for organ harvesting like its rumored they do in china, then more and more crimes made capital until we are executing people for traffic tickets inorder to keep the old and wealthy alive. perhaps an organ draft, where the young are forced by the state to give up their "extra" kidneys and lungs to save their greedy elders.

Then why have any medical services at all? Live or die based only on the strength of your own immune system.

Religious beliefs mostly. Some groups believe that the body must be whole, or that certain practices must be done when burying/cremating the body in order for that person to reach heaven.

Isn't that a self destructive argument? The removal of my blood from my body, replaced with formaldehyde would me no heaven for me, as would a death in which say I was decapitated and they couldn't find my head.

It's like you make threads about whatever NationStates issues you get for a particular day....

Is that where your desire for organ harvesting originates from?

No, it comes from here.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/President_Reagan_presents_Mother_Teresa_with_the_Medal_of_Freedom_1985.jpg

If you find saving lives a crazy idea, I am really shocked.

It's like you make threads about whatever NationStates issues you get for a particular day....

It's an issue? I didn't realize that -- in fact, I haven't actually looked at a NationStates issue in well over a year.

Then why have any medical services at all? Live or die based only on the strength of your own immune system.medical care is fine as long as it doesn't involve stealing body parts from one individual to save another. forcibly taking the organs of the dead is a slippery slope to either forcibly taking the organs of the living, or killing people then harvesting their organs. if you want to donate your organs that's your own business, but neither you nor the state has the right to take organs for others without their or their next of kins consent.

No, it comes from here.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/President_Reagan_presents_Mother_Teresa_with_the_Medal_of_Freedom_1985.jpg

If you find saving lives a crazy idea, I am really shocked.

I don't exactly understand what you're trying to get across with that picture...

Ronald Reagan harvests organs???

I still think Ronald Reagan should make a comeback. I'd vote for him.

It's an issue? I didn't realize that -- in fact, I haven't actually looked at a NationStates issue in well over a year.

Yes, whether to institute mandatory organ harvesting is a NationStates issue. Again, like I implied, pretty much every thread you've ever made relates to one of the extreme positions of a NationStates issue.

I don't exactly understand what you're trying to get across with that picture...

It's hyperbole, just like the post I quoted. Mother Teresa and I share the same goals -- we both want to save lives. She helped the sick by caring for them, and I want to help the sick by giving them organs.

One of the main problems facing our hospitals today is a lack of organs -- patients are dying because there are insufficient hearts, livers, or kidneys. Sadly, these precious organs can be found rotting beneath the ground, providing nutrition for various insects. As a society, we cannot accept the fact that so many people are dying painful, torturous deaths simply because organs could not be harvested from the recently deceased. It's simple: the dead don't need a heart, but those who serious heart problems do. Unfortunately, arcane religious beliefs may sometimes get in the way of saving lives; crazy zealots may believe that to go to heaven, they must first allow a man to die for lack of a transplant (or, as they would say it, have a full body). However, the first amendment ostensibly prevents the church from interfering with matter of the state. So the question arises: to whom does a dead body belong? Certainly no one can claim ownership to it but the state; it is an object, not a sentient being. Even if the body does belong to the family, we should not be squeamish in forcibly wrenching the body from their control and donating it to medical science for the purpose of allowing a sick man to live. The right to life must take priority over the right to throw a useful resource away. Our greatest concern must be with saving lives, not allowing some fanatics to kill by inaction by throwing a useful organ in the garbage.

Hear hear! :eek: The dead really don't need those organs- and what use would they serve in Heaven?

But really, it should be the wil of the deceased.

You really don't get it, do you?On the contrary. You say you're concerned about the lack of transplantable organs, yet you combine that with a witless troll on using humans for animal feed and bring in right-to-life.

No, you're not concerned with the lack of donor organs, or you would be addressing the real objections to donation (http://www.organdonor.gov/myths_and_facts.htm). By the way, contrary to your OP, the majority of western religions support organ donation.

Yes, whether to institute mandatory organ harvesting is a NationStates issue. Again, like I implied, pretty much every thread you've ever made relates to one of the extreme positions of a NationStates issue.

:eek:

It's true!

We could just clone organs and use them to meet demand, couldn't we? I see no reason why that's not possible; perhaps we could even give people the option to donate cells and tissues needed to clone organs in addition to donating the ones they already have. A person should have the option to use every part of their body to save lives after their death, and I think that would be an integral part of it.

And, by the way, almost all religions support organ donation. Most objections aren't even on religious grounds. Personally, I see organ donation as the last good act you can do on this Earth; I'd say that would enhance your moral standing upon death fairly considerably.

medical care is fine as long as it doesn't involve stealing body parts from one individual to save another. forcibly taking the organs of the dead is a slippery slope to either forcibly taking the organs of the living, or killing people then harvesting their organs. if you want to donate your organs that's your own business, but neither you nor the state has the right to take organs for others without their or their next of kins consent.

Slippery slope arguments involve unprovable hypotheticals. You could just as easily say that the next step could be the harvesting of organs from prisoners, or keeping persistant vegetatives alive as organ farms.

The state already sets laws as to what can and cannot be done with a corpse. If my wish was to have a viking funeral with a flaming boat, I cannot.

One of the main problems facing our hospitals today is a lack of organs -- patients are dying because there are insufficient hearts, livers, or kidneys. Sadly, these precious organs can be found rotting beneath the ground, providing nutrition for various insects. As a society, we cannot accept the fact that so many people are dying painful, torturous deaths simply because organs could not be harvested from the recently deceased. It's simple: the dead don't need a heart, but those who serious heart problems do. Unfortunately, arcane religious beliefs may sometimes get in the way of saving lives; crazy zealots may believe that to go to heaven, they must first allow a man to die for lack of a transplant (or, as they would say it, have a full body). However, the first amendment ostensibly prevents the church from interfering with matter of the state. So the question arises: to whom does a dead body belong? Certainly no one can claim ownership to it but the state; it is an object, not a sentient being. Even if the body does belong to the family, we should not be squeamish in forcibly wrenching the body from their control and donating it to medical science for the purpose of allowing a sick man to live. The right to life must take priority over the right to throw a useful resource away. Our greatest concern must be with saving lives, not allowing some fanatics to kill by inaction by throwing a useful organ in the garbage.

Additionally, we should employ the dead body to its fullest potential. It's not doing anybody any good by decomposing several feet under the surface of the earth, but it can be better utilized in other manners. After extracting all the necessary organs, we should proceed to make use of the muscles and other comestible body parts. The state should create an animal feed made out of humans, to be sold cheaply to farmers. This has the primary benefit of allowing the farmers to feed their animals in a more cost-effective manner, but it also has a secondary benefit. If farmers are less reliant on animal meats and the like to nourish their livestock, then those foods can be sold to consumers, thus slightly alleviating the problem of insufficient food.

This country was built upon efficiency and the proper and equitable allocation of resources; we should continue upon that tradition. A formerly untapped resource can now be exploited for the noble goals of saving lives and feeding animals, all at a benefit to the consumer. It may sound slightly dark and grotesque, but it's progress, and we must go forward with it.

I strongly agree with MTAE. The dead do not need their organs, and they have no control over theri bodys once they're not using them anymore. Its not their body anymore, because the person does not exist anymore; they are dead. Think of all the lives it could save!

I strongly agree with MTAE. The dead do not need their organs, and they have no control over theri bodys once they're not using them anymore. Its not their body anymore, because the person does not exist anymore; they are dead. Think of all the lives it could save!

It is ultimately up to the person or their family what to do with the organs. I agree that we should encourage organ donorship, but ultimately the person's body should be owned by that person, not by the government.

We could just clone organs and use them to meet demand, couldn't we?

Has an organ been successfully cloned in a cost-effective manner, yet? I don't think we have the technology to do that.

And, by the way, almost all religions support organ donation.

Yet only a few people allow all their organs to be harvested after they die. If not religion, then why?

Mother Teresa and I share the same goals -- we both want to save lives. She helped the sick by caring for them, and I want to help the sick by giving them organs.
She also prevented the use of condoms, which increased the spread of STIs everywhere she worked.

But then you want to outbreed the ebil baby-eating Muslims and such, so hey, not an issue, eh?

Has an organ been successfully cloned in a cost-effective manner, yet? I don't think we have the technology to do that.

Yet. That's why we need to work on it, and why we need to remove these ridiculous restrictions on stem-cell research. The problem of organ donation would become nonexistent once such a technology was developed. At the same time, we should also focus on curing the problems rather than just replacing the organs; if we hit it from both sides, these diseases will be cured a lot faster and a lot of suffering will be mitigated.


Yet only a few people allow all their organs to be harvested after they die. If not religion, then why?

I think a lot of it is just misunderstanding about the process. Some of it might also have to do with funerals and the like; they might be worried about whether it will impact the ability to have an open-cast funeral or something like that.

Slippery slope arguments involve unprovable hypotheticals. You could just as easily say that the next step could be the harvesting of organs from prisoners, or keeping persistant vegetatives alive as organ farms.

The state already sets laws as to what can and cannot be done with a corpse. If my wish was to have a viking funeral with a flaming boat, I cannot.

all attempts to determine future events and trends from the present situation in virtually any social science involve unprovable hypotheticals. unless you only want to talk about the past and just accept the future as it comes you simply have to accept that... and i did say that the next step would likely be prisoner harvesting which may well already be taking place in china and i believe people have already been kept alive for limited periods of time in vegetative state so their organs could be harvested even in the usa, so your counter example aren't really hypotheticals they are already facts..

I don't think it would be good to have mandatory organ collection from everyone who dies, but do you think an opt-out system could work? That way if people have objections they can still choose to not have their organs donated, but people who don't have any objections but for some reason or another didn't sign up as organ donors can still have their organs donated. Something definitely has to be done about this problem, but I don't think just taking organs from people after they die is the way to go.

Reduce, Re-use, Recycle. :)

At the same time, we should also focus on curing the problems rather than just replacing the organs

When you develop a cure for cancer or for over-eating, let me know. There is an immense effort to treat these illnesses, but it is much more feasible to transplant organs at our current technological state, until such cures are discovered. Right now, we cannot produce organs nor treat the diseases; we have only one recourse.

I think a lot of it is just misunderstanding about the process.

I think mandatory extraction of organs will clear up all that confusion.

...but do you think an opt-out system could work?

It's definitely the correct first step. Whether or not it will make a huge dent in the problem will have to be seen, but it's best to first attempt that before going to more extreme measures.

all attempts to determine future events and trends from the present situation in virtually any social science involve unprovable hypotheticals. unless you only want to talk about the past and just accept the future as it comes you simply have to accept that... and i did say that the next step would likely be prisoner harvesting which may well already be taking place in china and i believe people have already been kept alive for limited periods of time in vegetative state so their organs could be harvested even in the usa, so your counter example aren't really hypotheticals they are already facts..

You say "I believe" and "they are facts" in the same sentence, which is an oxymoron. Can you provide any evidence for these statements so I may review that information and retort properly?

Can I counter your argument by saying that compulsory organ harvesting would lead to a new golden age, due to longer lifespans, allowing people to continue works that would have been cut short by disease?

One of the main problems facing our hospitals today is a lack of organs -- patients are dying because there are insufficient hearts, livers, or kidneys. Sadly, these precious organs can be found rotting beneath the ground, providing nutrition for various insects. As a society, we cannot accept the fact that so many people are dying painful, torturous deaths simply because organs could not be harvested from the recently deceased. It's simple: the dead don't need a heart, but those who serious heart problems do. Unfortunately, arcane religious beliefs may sometimes get in the way of saving lives; crazy zealots may believe that to go to heaven, they must first allow a man to die for lack of a transplant (or, as they would say it, have a full body). However, the first amendment ostensibly prevents the church from interfering with matter of the state. So the question arises: to whom does a dead body belong? Certainly no one can claim ownership to it but the state; it is an object, not a sentient being. Even if the body does belong to the family, we should not be squeamish in forcibly wrenching the body from their control and donating it to medical science for the purpose of allowing a sick man to live. The right to life must take priority over the right to throw a useful resource away. Our greatest concern must be with saving lives, not allowing some fanatics to kill by inaction by throwing a useful organ in the garbage.

Additionally, we should employ the dead body to its fullest potential. It's not doing anybody any good by decomposing several feet under the surface of the earth, but it can be better utilized in other manners. After extracting all the necessary organs, we should proceed to make use of the muscles and other comestible body parts. The state should create an animal feed made out of humans, to be sold cheaply to farmers. This has the primary benefit of allowing the farmers to feed their animals in a more cost-effective manner, but it also has a secondary benefit. If farmers are less reliant on animal meats and the like to nourish their livestock, then those foods can be sold to consumers, thus slightly alleviating the problem of insufficient food.

This country was built upon efficiency and the proper and equitable allocation of resources; we should continue upon that tradition. A formerly untapped resource can now be exploited for the noble goals of saving lives and feeding animals, all at a benefit to the consumer. It may sound slightly dark and grotesque, but it's progress, and we must go forward with it.

Wow, I agree with MeansToAnEnd. Except: The state should create an animal feed made out of humans I can't help but think that that would make disease develope and spread like crazy...

It's definitely the correct first step. Whether or not it will make a huge dent in the problem will have to be seen, but it's best to first attempt that before going to more extreme measures.

Yeah, I think it'd be best to try that first and see if it helps and how much it helps. Mandatory collection of organs seems too extreme to me, especially if something less extreme could help first.

When you develop a cure for cancer or for over-eating, let me know. There is an immense effort to treat these illnesses, but it is much more feasible to transplant organs at our current technological state, until such cures are discovered. Right now, we cannot produce organs nor treat the diseases; we have only one recourse.

Oh, absolutely. We shouldn't bank on cures for diseases as an excuse not to use organs or other vital parts.

I think mandatory extraction of organs will clear up all that confusion.

I just don't think mandatory extraction is a good idea. It violates the rights of people to determine what they want to do with their bodies; I think there's a lot of risk when you hand that over to the government.

Wow, I agree with MeansToAnEnd. Except: The state should create an animal feed made out of humans I can't help but think that that would make disease develope and spread like crazy...

I agree with that, ala Mad Cow. Also he references aleviating the problem of insufficient food. Is there in fact such a problem?

It violates the rights of people to determine what they want to do with their bodies

Well, what's more important - the life of the person who needs the organ, or whatever value the potential donor gets from being assured control over her organs after death?

It is ultimately up to the person or their family what to do with the organs. I agree that we should encourage organ donorship, but ultimately the person's body should be owned by that person, not by the government.

But inorder for someone to claim their rights, they must be alive. I guess this really boils down to hte question "Do people have rights if their dead?" I would think not, although some people may or may not disagree with me. However, I think common sense tells us probably not. Also, organ harvesting would promote the general welfare of the people, as is said in the preamble of the united states constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
If the government refuses to harvest perfectly cabeable organs from a person who isn't even alive, are they promoting the general welfare of the people?

One of the main problems facing our hospitals today is a lack of organs -- patients are dying because there are insufficient hearts, livers, or kidneys. Sadly, these precious organs can be found rotting beneath the ground, providing nutrition for various insects. As a society, we cannot accept the fact that so many people are dying painful, torturous deaths simply because organs could not be harvested from the recently deceased. It's simple: the dead don't need a heart, but those who serious heart problems do. Unfortunately, arcane religious beliefs may sometimes get in the way of saving lives; crazy zealots may believe that to go to heaven, they must first allow a man to die for lack of a transplant (or, as they would say it, have a full body). However, the first amendment ostensibly prevents the church from interfering with matter of the state. So the question arises: to whom does a dead body belong? Certainly no one can claim ownership to it but the state; it is an object, not a sentient being. Even if the body does belong to the family, we should not be squeamish in forcibly wrenching the body from their control and donating it to medical science for the purpose of allowing a sick man to live. The right to life must take priority over the right to throw a useful resource away. Our greatest concern must be with saving lives, not allowing some fanatics to kill by inaction by throwing a useful organ in the garbage.

Additionally, we should employ the dead body to its fullest potential. It's not doing anybody any good by decomposing several feet under the surface of the earth, but it can be better utilized in other manners. After extracting all the necessary organs, we should proceed to make use of the muscles and other comestible body parts. The state should create an animal feed made out of humans, to be sold cheaply to farmers. This has the primary benefit of allowing the farmers to feed their animals in a more cost-effective manner, but it also has a secondary benefit. If farmers are less reliant on animal meats and the like to nourish their livestock, then those foods can be sold to consumers, thus slightly alleviating the problem of insufficient food.

This country was built upon efficiency and the proper and equitable allocation of resources; we should continue upon that tradition. A formerly untapped resource can now be exploited for the noble goals of saving lives and feeding animals, all at a benefit to the consumer. It may sound slightly dark and grotesque, but it's progress, and we must go forward with it.

I must change my sig, I don't disagree with you on everything!

You say "I believe" and "they are facts" in the same sentence, which is an oxymoron. Can you provide any evidence for these statements so I may review that information and retort properly?

Can I counter your argument by saying that compulsory organ harvesting would lead to a new golden age, due to longer lifespans, allowing people to continue works that would have been cut short by disease?
no i am not going to play the rather silly game of attempting to provide documentation for an internet messageboard debate, nor am i going to argue semantics with you... sorry neither of those a games i enjoy playing, maybe some else around here would be willing to oblige you.

But inorder for someone to claim their rights, they must be alive. I guess this really boils down to hte question "Do people have rights if their dead?" I would think not, although some people may or may not disagree with me. However, I think common sense tells us probably not. Also, organ harvesting would promote the general welfare of the people, as is said in the preamble of the united states constitution.

Well, at the same time usually the dead person's body and estate become the affair of their surviving family; they should be the ones to make that decision, just like it's up to them to carry out the instructions of the person's will or settle their debts.

The responsibilities and decisions of the person generally fall to their family as opposed to just disappear. Obviously, the person can't comment on the situation (since they're either just dead or in the afterlife), so it makes sense to give that decision to the family if the person in question made no specification when they were alive.

If the government refuses to harvest perfectly cabeable organs from a person who isn't even alive, are they promoting the general welfare of the people?

At the same time, if the government violates the rights of that person or their family to determine what to do with their body, isn't that just as bad?

"General welfare" is a very ambiguous term; it's not something that can be argued from just itself because all kinds of judicial and legal precedents have to be considered in regard to it.

no i am not going to play the rather silly game of attempting to provide documentation for an internet messageboard debate, nor am i going to argue semantics with you... sorry neither of those a games i enjoy playing, maybe some else around here would be willing to oblige you.

Which is unfortunate. I have always sought information and evidence with which to modify my opinions and arguments, and never refer to the pursuit of knowledge as a "silly game". An position without basis in factual evidence is philosophy.

Well, at the same time usually the dead person's body and estate become the affair of their surviving family; they should be the ones to make that decision, just like it's up to them to carry out the instructions of the person's will or settle their debts.
The responsibilities and decisions of the person generally fall to their family as opposed to just disappear. Obviously, the person can't comment on the situation (since they're either just dead or in the afterlife), so it makes sense to give that decision to the family if the person in question made no specification when they were alive.
Why would it make sense to give the rights to their family? The person's rights belong to them and only them, nobody else, and they cannot be transferred. Its like saying that you could transferr your vote to someone else if you really want to.


At the same time, if the government violates the rights of that person or their family to determine what to do with their body, isn't that just as bad?

"General welfare" is a very ambiguous term; it's not something that can be argued from just itself because all kinds of judicial and legal precedents have to be considered in regard to it.
Well, we both have already established that dead people do not have rights of themselves, and their rights cannot be transferred to their family. So no, its not just as bad.

Well, at the same time usually the dead person's body and estate become the affair of their surviving family; they should be the ones to make that decision, just like it's up to them to carry out the instructions of the person's will or settle their debts.
The responsibilities and decisions of the person generally fall to their family as opposed to just disappear. Obviously, the person can't comment on the situation (since they're either just dead or in the afterlife), so it makes sense to give that decision to the family if the person in question made no specification when they were alive.
Why would it make sense to give the rights to their family? The person's rights belong to them and only them, nobody else, and they cannot be transferred. Its like saying that you could transferr your vote to someone else if you really want to.


At the same time, if the government violates the rights of that person or their family to determine what to do with their body, isn't that just as bad?

"General welfare" is a very ambiguous term; it's not something that can be argued from just itself because all kinds of judicial and legal precedents have to be considered in regard to it.
Well, we both have already established that dead people do not have rights of themselves, and their rights cannot be transferred to their family. So no, its not just as bad.

Well, at the same time usually the dead person's body and estate become the affair of their surviving family; they should be the ones to make that decision, just like it's up to them to carry out the instructions of the person's will or settle their debts.
The responsibilities and decisions of the person generally fall to their family as opposed to just disappear. Obviously, the person can't comment on the situation (since they're either just dead or in the afterlife), so it makes sense to give that decision to the family if the person in question made no specification when they were alive.
Why would it make sense to give the rights to their family? The person's rights belong to them and only them, nobody else, and they cannot be transferred. Its like saying that you could transferr your vote to someone else if you really want to.


At the same time, if the government violates the rights of that person or their family to determine what to do with their body, isn't that just as bad?

"General welfare" is a very ambiguous term; it's not something that can be argued from just itself because all kinds of judicial and legal precedents have to be considered in regard to it.
Well, we both have already established that dead people do not have rights of themselves, and their rights cannot be transferred to their family. So no, its not just as bad.

Meh. The first part seems reasonable, if a tad invasive. Some premises behind it, like the person belonging to the state, are false, but the notion of helping when it doesn't harm you is fine by me (though I like it better in Brazil, where the body is harvested UNLESS the person asks otherwise).

The second part...

MEANSTOANEND... IS PEOPLE!!!

:D

Not only it's Soylent-Green-esque, it would create health issues. SEVERE ones.

An position without basis in factual evidence is philosophy. wait can you show my some documentation to back this up. have there ever been any scientific studies that prove this statement to be factually correct. if so what was their methodology....





just kidding... have fun in you quest for facts and don't underestimate philosophy, maybe religion but not philosophy.

I agree with compulsory organ harvesting, when applicable. However, your second idea is actually a health risk to people.

Because of the way that many carcinogens move through the ecosystem we would never be rid of them if we fed our meat to the meat we would eat. It would be a health nightmare.

Bioaccumulation and Biomagnification on a grand scale. Parabolic growth of carcinogen intake.

Yucky, nasty, stuff.

But compulsory organ harvesting isn't a problem in my mind.

wait can you show my some documentation to back this up. have there ever been any scientific studies that prove this statement to be factually correct. if so what was their methodology....





just kidding... have fun in you quest for facts and don't underestimate philosophy, maybe religion but not philosophy.

Don't get me wrong, I love philosophy. I just find an unfortunate trend towards people forming their opinions and then excluding any information that challenges that opinion. If there are people harvesting organs from prisoners, then I am opposed to that. But, for example, while I'm opposed to video cameras where people have an expectation of privacy, I am not opposed to the cameras themselves. Follow?

Don't get me wrong, I love philosophy. I just find an unfortunate trend towards people forming their opinions and then excluding any information that challenges that opinion. If there are people harvesting organs from prisoners, then I am opposed to that. But, for example, while I'm opposed to video cameras where people have an expectation of privacy, I am not opposed to the cameras themselves. Follow?
but cameras will steal your soul, heck once you've had you picture taken you may as well just turn yourself over to the organ harvesters your journey into the next life in already moot and your life in this world is without meaning.

but cameras will steal your soul, heck once you've had you picture taken you may as well just turn yourself over to the organ harvesters your journey into the next life in already moot and your life in this world is without meaning.

Can you provide evidence for a "soul" as you call it? Some quantifiable measurement? :p

Now getting way off topic, but if the camera steals your soul, what are we doing to our children with "school picture day"?

Should we take that as an invitation? :p

Which is unfortunate. I have always sought information and evidence with which to modify my opinions and arguments, and never refer to the pursuit of knowledge as a "silly game". An position without basis in factual evidence is philosophy.

The problem is, this entire debate is philosophy. Nobody is debating the merits of organ donation or the factual process and benefits of the process, but rather the ethics of mandatory donation and the rights of individuals over their bodies.

Why would it make sense to give the rights to their family? The person's rights belong to them and only them, nobody else, and they cannot be transferred. Its like saying that you could transferr your vote to someone else if you really want to.

Well, that's not necessarily true. Is the right to your body a political right, or is it like property in that it is an ingrained right that has nothing to do with the political structure? I mean, you can give property to someone else, and ownership transfers to them. I see no reason why your body would be any different.

Meh. The first part seems reasonable, if a tad invasive. Some premises behind it, like the person belonging to the state, are false, but the notion of helping when it doesn't harm you is fine by me (though I like it better in Brazil, where the body is harvested UNLESS the person asks otherwise).

The second part...

MEANSTOANEND... IS PEOPLE!!!

:D

Not only it's Soylent-Green-esque, it would create health issues. SEVERE ones.

Me agree.

Well, that's not necessarily true. Is the right to your body a political right, or is it like property in that it is an ingrained right that has nothing to do with the political structure? I mean, you can give property to someone else, and ownership transfers to them. I see no reason why your body would be any different.

Then the body is property, and could be seized under Emminant Domain

Then the body is property, and could be seized under Emminant Domain

The scary thing is, however, that according to the recent Supreme Court ruling private companies could seize your body if the project in question was deemed to have merit by a judge.

I think this is a risky, and unexplored issue to say the least.

Just a thought, but could we go from a system to where organ donation needs explicit consent to a system where consent is presumed? In the new system a person would need to sign something that says they do not want their organs given away in case of their death instead of where they need to make explicit that they do want to give away their organs.

An alternative is to allow people to sell their organs, nonessential or otherwise, on the open market while they are alive. In economic terms this voluntary exchange would benefit both the seller and the buyer.

i dont mind my dead body being used as animal feed, but i'm not an organ donor casue i'm paranoid that doctors might not try as hard to revive me if i was one.

Yes, it was wrong to feed cows dead cows because that would be an act of cannibalism, which often has detrimental health effects. However, there would be nothing wrong with feeding a cow a dead human any more than it would be an error to feed them a dead pig.

Er, no. Human prions are almost certainly capable of jumping to cattle. Cannibalism doesn't cause the diseases. Consumption of prion-tainted food does. It's extremely rare to find a prion that doesn't jump. They're proteins.