NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not sure whether this belongs in the Gameplay forums or the Issues forums. I posted it in Gameplay forums since it will directly affect my nation.


Here's what I can't decide on....


Hospitals have requested that they be allowed to pay people for donating blood and other bodily organs, such as kidneys.

The Debate

1. "We remain critically short of blood plasma and various organs," says Sharina One hospital administrator Aaron Hendrikson. "Especially hearts. A good heart is hard to find. But if we were allowed to pay for donations, we'd get more of them and could save more lives. Plus the donor takes home a few hundred lianas in compensation. Unless it's a post-mortem donation, of course. In that case we'd pay the family."
[Accept]


2. "Great idea," says social commentator Colin Shiomi. "Except for one thing. You know who's going to be selling their organs? Poor people! They'll be so desperate for money that they'll sell their own kidneys. Well, a kidney. This is just another way for the rich to buy themselves a better life at the expense of the poor. It must be outlawed."
[Accept]


=================

I'm not sure if choosing option 1 will increase the overall health of my whole nation at the expense of my civil rights rating.

Or if I choose option 2, will I gain civil rights, but lose economy or health?


In addition, if I chose option 1, would my population growth per year increase? I heard rumors that better health = quicker population growth.


Any help would be appreciated. :D

I'm not sure whether this belongs in the Gameplay forums or the Issues forums. I posted it in Gameplay forums since it will directly affect my nation.


Here's what I can't decide on....


Hospitals have requested that they be allowed to pay people for donating blood and other bodily organs, such as kidneys.


Any help would be appreciated. :D


Hmzz.....this can be a tough one, but...I'm "ruling" my nation by ethics...I think it's unethical to pay for blood and organs etc.
I had an issue today concerning making organ donation mandatory...so if a person dies, the hospital is permitted to harvest organs..no concent needed. I voted against it...I rather respect personal freedom and the right of choice than increasing the healthcare possibilities of hospitals in the way stated in the issue.

There are many ways that lead to Rome...... :cool:

I'm not sure if choosing option 1 will increase the overall health of my whole nation at the expense of my civil rights rating.

Or if I choose option 2, will I gain civil rights, but lose economy or health? You summed it up pretty muchly accurately. 1 should increase your economy as well, I believe.


In addition, if I chose option 1, would my population growth per year increase? I heard rumors that better health = quicker population growth.The rumors are false; issues have no effect whatsoever on your population. It grows at a steady, randomized rate.

On this issue I voted against payment for donation. It is against the rules of the international red cross (IIRC) and I think it is unethical. I think it increases corruption, organ-mafia and organ-theft.

I don't really care about the effects, because according to my status today, my healthcare system is functioning perfectly :)

On this issue I voted against payment for donation. It is against the rules of the international red cross (IIRC) and I think it is unethical. I think it increases corruption, organ-mafia and organ-theft.

I don't really care about the effects, because according to my status today, my healthcare system is functioning perfectly :)

That is what I (omniCura) was thinking exactly... :fluffle:

I had a similar issue: should organ donation be mandatory? I voted no, because who knows who might have diseases like AIDS? It would take a long time to check all the organs.