Gelare
Academy Faculty
Citizen of Nerianti of Wolfshire
Dean Gelare of the Academy
Posts: 138
|
Post by Gelare on Jul 9, 2009 9:44:13 GMT -5
Welcome, students, to the discussion thread for Philosophy 201 - Organ Markets. These matters of life and death always make for vigorous - and contentious - debate, so keep it civil, keep it thoughtful, and let the ideas flow!
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Jul 10, 2009 9:13:34 GMT -5
I am in accord with the lecture. I try to limit restrictions on things that don't affect the public by and large. Your decision on what to do with your kidney fits in the realm of 'it's not our decision to make.' Yes, the regulatyion and oversight to make sure it is being done in a safe manner with licensed and regulated facilities is a must. That's where the restrictions are in the 'public good' category. It's not our place, as the government, to tell you what to do with your kidney but it is our place to tell you how to handle other people's kidneys.
When it comes to doing something with your body, it's your decision. If you wish to make money off of that, so be it. A masseuse sells their hands, a voice actor sells their voice, an athlete sells their talent, a model sells their looks and a prostitute sells the rest. It's not our place to make decisions on what you do with what you own (and own in the most absolute manner imaginable.)
|
|
Artz
Denizen
Posts: 54
|
Post by Artz on Jul 10, 2009 10:23:03 GMT -5
Now I, for one, would not want to undertake in an operation such as this because of the 'survival' basis. I hate how selfish it sounds, and there would be other reasons already stated for me, but you could argue it from the stance that living in this world.. we're meant to be living in a game of 'survival of the fittest'. The whole of the animal kingdom do it, but we skip out on it, even sacrificing part of ourselves (which may danger our own lives) for others. Now, everyone would say 'oh, thats the human way... thats how you should be, caring compasionate', but yet on the other hand, our population is at a dangerous level.
Perhaps this is bringing in two different arguements, but I say keep it on the 'leaving my body to science' and accidents. I guess its a hard one because we want to be compassionate to those who do need it, and its best for them if they get it... but then again the more people that give 'givable while you're alive' organs, the more the population grows and the less selective genes are. Problems, that form naturally due to genes become more of a problem and we'll have to keep treating them and treating them until we over-run ourselves. It seems a good idea now, but what about in the long run?
|
|
Gelare
Academy Faculty
Citizen of Nerianti of Wolfshire
Dean Gelare of the Academy
Posts: 138
|
Post by Gelare on Jul 10, 2009 15:35:00 GMT -5
I'd like to post a link to this article, not because it's a particularly good article (it's not), but simply to illustrate that this is a current, topical issue hotly and widely debated today. Carry on, everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Jul 11, 2009 2:16:18 GMT -5
Technically the more people there are the more diverse the gene pool and the more selectivity in the breeding process is available. So from the standpoint of genetic diversity raising the population is only a boon.
I understand what you mean when you refer to population influence, but unless I'm off base I don't think it is a significantly high cause of death to make that much of a difference. And then you open the can of worms that involves compulsory birth control or the slaughtering of children like China. Ethical issues of whether it's our place to tell people what they can and can't do with their bodies the logistical nightmare that is even thinking about population control is overwhelming. The innate desire to procreate is as strong, if not stronger, than the will to survive.
|
|
Artz
Denizen
Posts: 54
|
Post by Artz on Jul 14, 2009 4:31:31 GMT -5
Technically the more people there are the more diverse the gene pool and the more selectivity in the breeding process is available. So from the standpoint of genetic diversity raising the population is only a boon. I understand what you mean when you refer to population influence, but unless I'm off base I don't think it is a significantly high cause of death to make that much of a difference. And then you open the can of worms that involves compulsory birth control or the slaughtering of children like China. Ethical issues of whether it's our place to tell people what they can and can't do with their bodies the logistical nightmare that is even thinking about population control is overwhelming. The innate desire to procreate is as strong, if not stronger, than the will to survive. Well, yes, it is as strong, but its difficult, as the humane thing is to heal the sick, yet because we keep ourselves so.. healthy, we're living longer, which is tipping the scale of old-young, doing hell to the healthcare funding and keeping a population at a higher rate for longer amounts of time. Though, I guess this is slightly going off on a tangent. But it means that maybe we shouldn't do organ donations because of the ever so inhumane thought of it being better off, in the big picture, if it didn't happen. Of course, that doesn't help the ones that need it and that causes us to worry about our own personal survival.. as if we were the ones that needed it, it would be a different story.
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Jul 14, 2009 9:10:06 GMT -5
But for every kidney donated there is now someone with half as much kidney as before. Doesn't that statistically make them twice as likely to die of kidney related problems?
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Jul 16, 2009 8:50:37 GMT -5
Just as a hysterical coincidence there's a student in our summer camp this week who was born with only one kidney.
|
|
Nesslandria Haneh
Aristocrat
Countess of Wolfshire County
Loyal servant to our Lord Protector and his Queen.
Posts: 230
|
Post by Nesslandria Haneh on Jul 17, 2009 11:54:26 GMT -5
As the sister of someone who needs a kidney transplant (http://uantir.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=lounge&action=display&thread=194), I'm certainly not in favor of ceasing organ transplants. Making a business out of it is something I never thought of. I will comment further when I'm not at work.
|
|
|
Post by Mira O'Halloran on Jul 29, 2009 6:47:37 GMT -5
I have to agree with Artz - Those with (This is going to sound bad) "weaker genes" will survive and pass the weak genes on, thus practically removing natural selection and survival of the fittest, which is essentially a survival mechanism for the human as a species.
Should there be a massive natural disaster that takes out the power to places like hospitals, how many people are going to die in agony because the machine that was giving them air, or giving them the correct dosage of drugs has stopped working?
I believe that people should get to say goodbye, but in today's society - longer is better, regardless of the quality.
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Jul 29, 2009 9:00:07 GMT -5
Is it our choice whether someone lives longer, with diminished standards of life and the risk of a horrible death from a power outage. I do agree that much of modern medicine has had the unfortunate effect of making us a genetically weaker species than we used to be. On the other hand though Her Majesty is asthmatic and may have never survived to become my beautiful wife without albuteral and a nebuliser. It is hard to be pragmatic and cold hearted about genetic purity when faced with that. Also many health problems that require a kidney transplant or a new heart happen in the elder years of life, after the standard human procreation years. The percentage of the population that needs these kinds of medical procedures while still in the standard reproductive years is very low, though it exists and even 12% of hundreds of millions is a big number.
But from a political point of view it is unethical to remove someone's option to live longer, even if they are living longer on a hospital bed. To many people like us that's worse than hell and we'd rather expire naturally. But that's not everyone's wish. We can't tell people how they have to die (unless we're executing them) if there is the means out there to give them the death they want. Though it's starting to stray off the original topic that is the same reason I'm for assisted suicide.
|
|
|
Post by Mira O'Halloran on Jul 30, 2009 4:04:32 GMT -5
Then there's the mushy emotional side... I wouldn't be here either. I was born 4 weeks early, spent 6 weeks in special care, and was a pretty serious asthmatic from birth till 6, then 12- 14, then 18 -22. i'm doing pretty well now though. so i can see that side of the argument too. But it's all the environmental problems that are caused by a huge population that my concerns are on right now, because that's what's come up - we're living longer, consuming more, and there is less to go around.
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Jul 30, 2009 8:05:08 GMT -5
Agreed, and I do not argue the point that not only are we over crowded but we're consuming our resources wastefully even though there isn't enough to go around. The answer is not culling the human race though, as tempting as that sounds. We're no longer Spartans, and though there's always merit to ancient tradition no one sacrifices a bull before a battle for good luck anymore either. Is that because we're more civilized? I don't know, Ancient Greece was far more accepting of nudity and promiscuity. It's all a matter of perspective. And public opinion of our current age does not line up with the steel hearted view of 'survival of the fittest,' even if we believe that.
That leaves us two option right? Completely reform, through force of government, public acceptance of an idea (though look how well that worked with prohibition.) In some ways it's an easier possibility with Uantir since we're not forcing people to do anything they are choosing to become part of our nations and thus can make the decision whether they agree with our opinions and don't have to join if they don't like it. That is in comparison to people who are living somewhere and have no means of escaping the new laws.
Or, we accept the fault of humanity that they want to live forever and will sometimes gladly live forever on a hospital bed, and instead focus on the areas that are more feasible to control like conservation of resources, smart use of the environment and instilling a healthy culture (in reference to unhealthy preservatives and High Fructose Corn Syrup etc. that give people the illnesses that make them hospital bound.)
|
|
Nesslandria Haneh
Aristocrat
Countess of Wolfshire County
Loyal servant to our Lord Protector and his Queen.
Posts: 230
|
Post by Nesslandria Haneh on Aug 16, 2009 1:43:18 GMT -5
This is, of course, the time to bring up the argument of potential. Weaker genes they (and I) may have, but who's to say that a 24 yr old in need a kidney transplant won't go on to find the cure to cancer or solve world hunger? We can't look only at our viability for procreation. We all have the potential to contribute to the improvement of other people's lives. And why should someone have to die young just because they have 'weak' genes? All human life has value, and I don't see why we shouldn't save someone's life if we have the ability to. I'm not ready to die, and I know my brother isn't ready to, either. I may have ulcerative colitis, which is passed down genetically, and I may or may not have the same gene that caused my brother's kidneys to fail, but that doesn't mean I'll let anyone tell me I can't get the medical treatment I need to stay alive. There are things that can be done to preserve my life. Who's to say that my children or grandchildren won't find the cure to these afflictions? Or create clean energy? Or do something else to better this world? I don't want to live forever, but I do want to live out my life. Twenty-two years have not been enough.
On a sidenote, we've definitely drifted off topic a bit. XD And please don't misunderstand: I'm not offended by what anyone else has posted. =D
As to the topic at hand, in theory, I think live donors should be able to receive some sort of compensation. It's a big deal to donate a kidney for someone else. (It's easier for me to continue to refer to them as 'donor', even if they are no longer donating their organ. Please bear with me.) The problem that arises is this: some people are better able to provide rewards than others. Say Jill has been waiting for a kidney for 3 years. Bob, who has only been on the waiting list for 3 months, has a six figure salary. Even if there is a mediating company between 'donor' and patient, Bob has enough money to find out information when he wants it. Bob also has enough money to sweeten the deal for any 'donor' that is a match to his blood type. So Bob jumps in line because he has his procedure done in a private clinic and the 'donor' has pulled out of the general 'donation' pool. Jill is stuck waiting. I don't know how likely this scenario is. Like Gelare stated, if 'donors' receive compensation, the number of 'donors' will rise and shorten, if not eliminate, the waiting list.
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Aug 16, 2009 10:19:37 GMT -5
That scenario is much more likely when there's no compensation because Bob will bribe someone. If Jill could pay someone for their kidney she'd likely not wait three years.
|
|