Ending Organ Donor Shortages? 405
Tracy2112 writes "An interesting and recurring science fiction theme is the idea of black-market traffic in human body parts -- as Larry Niven termed it, "organlegging". According to this USA Today's Op-Ed piece on Yahoo, we're getting closer . . . including
LifeSharers.com, , an organization working to sign up "preferred donors" who agree to preferentially donate to other LifeSharer members. Is this a great way to reward people for being generous with their unused body parts -- or a scary flashback to how early 'subscription-only' fire departments worked?"
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not a registered organ donor? Then no transplant! (Score:5, Insightful)
Because hospitals are too afraid of being sued by the families if they take the organs anyway. Personally, I think it's disgusting that a family would ignore a person's request like that, and that our legal system is screwed up enough that a lawsuit would probably prevail in such a case...
How about this:
If you want to be eligible to receive transplanted organs should you ever need them, you must be a registered organ donor.
Otherwise, too bad.
This way, you encourage people to register as organ donors (as I have, for example) *and* you cut down on the leeches. If someone has a religious or other dumbass objection to donating organs, then how is it fair for them to be able to receive them while other people who are willing to contribute to the system die on waiting lists?
It's just like any peer-to-peer filesharing system: if you want to download, you really have to share for the system to work.
Re:Not a registered organ donor? Then no transplan (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not a registered organ donor? Then no transplan (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not a registered organ donor? Then no transplan (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure they can. AIDS patients can donate to other AIDS patients.
There's a little more to it than that. The HIV virus has several (many?) different strains; cross-infecting an individual with different strains would be A Very Bad Thing.
However, if a given AIDS patient could produce proof that they'd signed their organ donor card prior to infection (or to discovering they were infected), then I'd have no problem whatsoever to posthumously helping them out.
Condoms do break. I've had it happen. (Though not
Re:Not a registered organ donor? Then no transplan (Score:3, Funny)
Except I'd imagine a lot of the people who need organs don't have much in the way of usable organs themselves. Or are we so desparate that we'll take organs from smoking alchoholics?
What about... (Score:4, Interesting)
My question is... what about kids? At what age do we decide that they can make their own decisions about transplants? Can their parents decide for them? There was a young (I think 5-year-old) boy around here who just had a heart transplant recently. Would it have been ethical to deny him that heart because he's not of age to decide to donate?
As good as an organ-sharing system may sound, I think that the only way organ donations will increase is if someone works out an incentive plan. Given how few people think that something bad might happen to them, how likely is this group to make much of a difference?
Besides, personally, I have a hard time with giving organs preferentially to altruistic people. They should go to the ones who need them the most, no matter how appealing it might be to reserve them for other nice folks.
As for religious objections to organ donation... I don't know of any religions that believe you should refuse to donate organs but that will happily allow acceptance of them, so these people are hardly abusing the system - no matter how "dumbass" you think their beliefs are.
Re:Not a registered organ donor? Then no transplan (Score:3, Insightful)
This idea is viscerally satifying this moment, but wrongheaded nonetheless. What if no other registered donors need your fresh organ? Just let it rot away while some non-donor needs it?
Which is exactly what would happen if I didn't sign my organ donor card...
It's unpleasant, but so is imagining the doctors harvesting your corneas. Most people will (apparently, based on the number of donors) not do it. Maybe they would if there was something in it for them.
Think about it. Health insurance companies woul
Try reconsidering. (Score:3, Insightful)
The hard part about organ donations, is the organs need to be taken out very soon after a death, and sometimes it's too soon.
Re:Try reconsidering. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Try reconsidering. (Score:3, Insightful)
Frankly, this being America after all, I'm surprised nobody has sued on these grounds before. (Maybe they have.)
Re:Try reconsidering. (Score:4, Informative)
I can't be sure how it works in your area of the world, but here (BC, Canada) the doctors don't actually know you're an organ donor when you're dragged into an emergency room. There is no driver's license decal or any other sort of identification you carry with you as an organ donor. Rather, if you're ever in a situation where you're braindead but stable on life support, they'll check the registry and see if you're on it. Then, they'll verify that you're actually braindead, and take your organs.
In theory, that's how it works. You can, of course, claim that that's a lie. In that case, I can't prove you wrong, but I can only say that your opinion of the medical profession rather low.
Well, that's just speculation, and once again, it only reflects a strong bias against the medical profession on your part.
But to put a lighter spin on the whole issue... let's say they're a bit more eager to let you die when you're an organ donor. Is that really so bad? In a situation where you're at the edge of life/death, you may end up brain-damaged if you recover after they've been shocking you for a few minutes. You may end up retarded and drooling for the rest of your life. Is death so much worse?
One way or another, I'm an organ donor. I can't see a logical reason why anyone wouldn't be.
Good idea (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not a case of doctors being 'evil', simply that if there's incentive for you to be dead, they might be pushed to make that decision about you while you still have a chance of 'coming back'.
She said you can put that kind of thing in your will. I haven't done that, but I guess I'm more worried about keeping me alive than someone else.
Re:Try reconsidering. (Score:5, Informative)
The CAUSE of the shortage situation is certainly not selfishness or paranoia. First, the demand for organ donation has increased. Why? Simple, technological advances, particular in surgery and immunological typing, allow a greater number of procedures and organs to be done. We are better in sheer surgical technique, as well as understanding what organs will be accepted from and to whom.
So, the sheer number percentage and in volume of organ donors have gone up. However, the number of people who want or need organs have increased. Demand has outstripped supply. Hence, a market has developed.
Remember that word above, cause? The need of organ donation is not the fault of the donor. Frequently, and this required revision in the organ donation system to our present day system, it's the receiver's lifestyle--somebody didn't take care of their first organ. I don't see why anyone should die sooner without the full course of potential treatment because someone didn't take of what was given to them in the first place.
Now, there are certainly a huge number of other donations, due to disease, genetics, accidents, where there is a demand. But you seem to think that people being selfish first is the cause for pressure on the system. You don't, at all, offset some of the cause for this pressure--the organ receiver population puts pressure on the donor system too, because a good percentage of receiver's led crappy lifestyles in the first place. Remove those, as the organ donation system has compensated, and demand is still there, but much less so than you imagine.
Second, what I give of my body is MINE FIRST, not yours to take. This isn't an income tax debate. It has nothing to do with selfishness but sanctity of self. While this may appear selfish to you, our society has chosen this line by action as well as by legal and health ramifications. If we did not follow such rules, we could go over to your house, shoot your sorry ass, and harvest your organs. After all, 10+ people could survive for your one sacrifice. If you protest, well, darn. You're just being selfish, heh? So give them up. 10 people are surely more worthwhile than your measily butt.
"Doctors would be able to harvest organs from those patients who are most certainly dead."
You have no reason to believe that their unethical practices would decrease. Why? Because they are bound legally and ethically to make sure the person is dead in the first place, but they don't always. They, not the people, have instilled this fear by being too obsessive-compulsive, with their first in line attitudes.
See, a lot to do with organ donation is simply not supply. It's geographical location, time/disease progression, typing, size of the organ, age of the individuals, etc. Sheer organ supply in and of itself is just one issue; having the *right* organ is a big deal too (and, of course, sometimes where increased pressure occurs, hopefully ethically).
A complete counter example is that doctors may approach families of non organ donors to get them to sign off on organ donation too.
Also, if a large majority of society became donors, the number of optional, flippant procedures would increase, pushing increasing demand, again outstripping supply. The market that we see now would still remain (although, ironicly, probably be more hectic but saner--optional procedures mean big money and more front money).
Yes, yes, I realize you believe that everything would go away if everyone gave. It doesn't work that way all the time.
I, personally, took the organ donation off my driver's license in the past year. After medical school and reading the cases, as well as knowing my colleagues, I sadly no longer trust the system. You think I'm scared? Damn straight, I am.
So much so, I am considering writing a note attached to my license explicitly stating that family members cannot sign away my donation rights when or if I cannot decide for myself.
Selfish? Damn straight. I do not find it acceptable to receive substandard health care because someone else wants my body parts.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Part of the problem is caused by dead people whose families don't allow the deceased's organs to be harvested, even if that person had given full legal consent for doctors to do so when they died.
The op-ed article does say:
At an Orlando conference this year, donor experts agreed to promote ''donor authorization,'' which would allow organs to be harvested if the deceased had signed donor cards, even if their families disapprove. If widely adopted, that would modestly alleviate the crisis -- but sti
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, living kidney donation does involve some relatively small risks and slightly increased possibility that you'd need a kidney transplant of your own eventually, but the statistical increses are minimal. Personally, I've considered becoming a living kidney donor--gotta be great for the karma.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Who told you this? Bone marrow donation is still a surgical procedure. As with all surgical procedures, there is risk, pain, and time lost.
Bone marrow extraction is extremely painful. Don't confuse it with testing; that's a blood test. There are several magazine articles you can read about marrow donors. They harvest from your hip, requiring large gauge needles to be buried deep into your flesh as well as the bone itself. They core out fo
Optional (Score:2, Insightful)
Varying levels of donation... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to donate anything,
To donate specific organs only,
To donate any organs/tissues for transplant, or
To donate any organs/tissues for transplant and/or research
If you're really concerned about this, just choose option b and list off what you are willing to give. Heck, some places may allow you to specify organs or tissues only for non-cosmetic transp
As long as (Score:2)
yet another situation (Score:2)
We speak of repaying a debt to society (Score:2)
Executions... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Executions... (Score:2)
That was Gary Gilmore. His brother, Mikal Gilmore, a writer for Rolling Stone, later wrote "Shot In The Heart" which was his memoir of the incidents surrounding his brother's conviction for murder and subsequent execution.
The Adverts, a punk band from Britain, had a hit with the song "Gary Gilmore's Eyes."
Response (Score:2)
Re:Executions... (Score:3, Insightful)
But, I don't think there should be any ads during the proceedings because it would cheapen the situation, althoug
Re:Executions... (Score:2, Interesting)
I think a lot of them would be thinking "That's it? I can't believe we were going to spend all that money on something so stupid."
Re:Executions... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's one way of look
Re:Executions... (Score:3, Informative)
There is a certain "sweet spot" that's pretty hard to hit, where you snap the person's neck, killing them instantly. How
Re:Executions... (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, the reason I suggested N2O is that it also binds to and blocks the NMDA receptor. This is a special type of glutamate receptor which also happens to be blocked by drugs like ketamine, PCP, or dextromethorphan
Careful of the unintended consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, death row inmates should be allowed to donate organs if they choose to. I just don't want it to be in some corporation's financial interest to expand the death penalty.
A very imperfect one, though. (Score:2)
To Increase Organ Donors (Score:5, Funny)
Re:To Increase Organ Donors (Score:5, Funny)
This is true (Score:2)
Re:To Increase Organ Donors (Score:2)
Re:To Increase Organ Donors (Score:2, Insightful)
You're right, you shouldn't have to pay for the medical bills of anyone else. When laws get passed that force people to pay for other people's mistakes, such as socialized health care, medicare, and medicaid, it turns the government into everyone's nanny, dictating how we should behave at every turn.
We need to get rid of the socialist stuff, and then everyone is free to do whatever they want to do
Re:To Increase Organ Donors (Score:3, Interesting)
Second, helmets are not as effective as you might think. They reduce the risk of death by about 30% by the govt's own most generous estimates. That means when somebody dies helmetless, they probably would have died with a helmet anyways. Of course 30% is still worth having, and I hope you always wear one when driving your car for maximum safety.
Finally, the argument about mak
Re:To Increase Organ Donors (Score:2)
I do, except it's inflatable and installed by the manufacturer under federal law.
Ok..so (Score:2)
In the latest issue of Wired (Score:2, Informative)
Need to change the approach (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Need to change the approach (Score:5, Insightful)
When the time comes that my death or persistant vegetative state is imminent, then my wife will give them consent - but not before.
Re:Need to change the approach (Score:4, Funny)
Too late now.
Re:Need to change the approach (Score:4, Interesting)
To be honest, I think very, very few octors would entertain the idea of letting you die so your organs could be transplanted. Even if a tiny percentage have thought this without being repulsed by the clear violation of medical ethics, the chances of a doctor acting on those thoughts is even more miniscule. I suspect the chances of your wife being unavailiable are markedly higher than the chances of you being killed for your organs. If I were you, I'd just carry an organ donor card - let them get 'em while they're fresh.
Just my $0.02,
Michael
Re:Need to change the approach (Score:5, Insightful)
The only time your organs can be harvested is if you have zero chance of recovery (brain missing, etc..) or in rare circumstances when you have a living will which authorized the termination of life support.
If anything, carrying a donor card would keep you alive longer (in an odd way), as the EMTs will continue CPR and other life-saving techniques when they ordinarily wouldn't in order to keep your transplantable organs from sustaining further damage.
Re:Need to change the approach (Score:2)
Once someone is declared legally dead, as in no more brain activity, they'll be kept on respirator until doctors can apply for a search in the register and/or ask relatives, in case there was no registration in the register. The registered wish takes precedence, then the relatives wish. Without any obtainable statement from anyone or
Re:Need to change the approach (Score:2)
No, the solution here isn't to trick people into becoming organ donors (which is what you're suggesting). The solutio
Re:Need to change the approach (Score:2)
About 10 percent of the population choose to opt out of donating their organs. Hardly an overwhelming majority.
I think you'd be surprised how many people actually dont care what happens to their organs when they're dead.
Re:Need to change the approach (Score:3, Interesting)
You have to realize also, some people just think the idea that someone else has their organ is pretty scary, I'm kind of undecided on that, but I'm not a donor for other reasons [slashdot.org]
Re:Need to change the approach (Score:2)
Re:Need to change the approach (Score:2)
And if you are thinking about replying to this
The Meaning of Life? (Score:2, Funny)
In related news... (Score:2, Funny)
What if... (Score:4, Interesting)
What if people wanted to leave the list? Would they have to return thier organs? If not, people could join if they needed organs, get the organs, then quit. Saying 'you can't join the list if you already need an organ' wouldn't be a very good rule, but 'you can't leave the list' wouldn't be too hot either.
Also, if organs were only availiable to donors, people whose religion said 'no donating' might not be able to get organs. Of course, a religion which allowed people to recieve organs but not give them would be a bit hypocritical.
Just my $0.02,
Michael
Re:What if... (Score:4, Informative)
They already have a rule to (somewhat) alleviate this - there's a 180 day waiting period after you join before you qulify to receive preferential access to other member's organs. See their FAQ [lifesharers.com], 6th question.
Put donors first (Score:5, Interesting)
Organ Transplants Shouldnt Be a "Right" (Score:4, Insightful)
So if a group wants to make it easier for THEM to prolong their lives, who cares. But noone should complain. The fire analogy is wrong. General safety in a society should be encouraged and given to the society as a whole. Artificial extension of life isn't a needed function and has little intrinsic benefits.
You have a valid point but... (Score:2)
Re:You have a valid point but... (Score:4, Insightful)
We all need to come to terms with our inevitable death. Medicine is nice when it can give us a few more years of good life, but we shouldn't come to expect it.
Re:Organ Transplants Shouldnt Be a "Right" (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Organ Transplants Shouldnt Be a "Right" (Score:2)
Artificial extermination of perfectly natural fires is a waste of money with little benefit to society.
Re:Organ Transplants Shouldnt Be a "Right" (Score:2)
Can you furnish us with a list of medical conditions you consider not worth treating? Or would you prefer to set a dollar figure beyond which we should let you die?
An extra four or five years can make a tremendous difference to people, to their families. 'Half dead' or not, some people have something to live for.
Re:Organ Transplants Shouldnt Be a "Right" (Score:3, Insightful)
Transplant recipients can live for years - and have a very good quality of life too, in many cases.
"Artificial extension of life isn't a needed function and has little intrinsic benefits."
I bet you'll still take drugs if a doctor tells you you're seriously ill. Do you carry a little card around with you that says "In case of accident that leaves me half dead, do not treat me" ?
I hope you don't get to find out the hard way how stupid your beliefs really are.
Re:Organ Transplants Shouldnt Be a "Right" (Score:3, Insightful)
After a decade of work and therapy, she is now ready to move into her own place. She is pursuing an interest in writing, and has started taking classes at a local community college.
Compare t
A small proposal (Score:2, Interesting)
Or, a law that says you sign you drivers license if you DON'T want to donate, and assume anyone that doesn't sign wants to.
Re:A small proposal (Score:2, Insightful)
Negative option is immoral, and does not communicate consent. Your example would make default consent to being an organ donor mandatory for anyone who wishes to legally drive.
I don't want the record clubs in the human organ harvesting business, thank you very much.
It *was* 20 minutes into the future... (Score:2, Informative)
Easy enough for someone to be a condemned criminal in, say, China and wake up a piece at a time. Brings in lots of solid western currency too--far higher profit than prison labour to make running shoes.
Organs, organs everywhere... (Score:3, Interesting)
Or make less of an effort to save you because your organs are so badly needed. It wouldn't be the first time.
Re:Organs, organs everywhere... (Score:2)
This will have to suffice:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&
Re:Organs, organs everywhere... (Score:2)
Just a point... (Score:2)
The RIAA has a plan. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The RIAA has a plan. (Score:2)
You have it wrong. The organs are harvested first, without judicial intervention, based solely on recomendations by the RIAA's supercomputers. If the accused is later found to be innocent, the organs can be reclaimed by the family of the 'donor', at their own expense.
Cool (Score:5, Funny)
The consent is not the problem (Score:5, Informative)
Truth of the matter is that there are simply not enough donors / not the right donors to provide all necessary organs. Where I live (Belgium) organ donation works as an opt-out system. There's a law that says that everybody is an organ donor (when they die) unless they have a certain form in their wallet stating the opposite. Hardly anybody opts out yet still there are not enough organs. Reason for this is that people that die tend to have been old and sick, or (if it's someone young) have most likely been in a traffic accident. None of these are the right circumstances for organ donation. Add to this the fact that you need matching blood types, have very little time for the organ harvasting etc... and it gets pretty obvious that taking organs from humans as spare bodyparts will only help a small percentage of cases.
I'd place my money on using organs specifically grown for harvasting: e.g. pigs are used to grow skin that helps burn victims.
Re:The consent is not the problem (Score:2, Informative)
First reflexion... (Score:2)
That would surely provide us with a fresh wave of organ supply...
Economics 101 (Score:2)
How do you explain the shortage of any good or service? Simply: the price is too low. Concerning organs ready for transplant, the fault of the shortage is the notion of organ "donors" itself.
Now, there's nothing wrong with someone wanting to give away their organs for free. That's fine, and they should be allowed to do so. There's nothing wrong with charity. It should come as no surprise, however, that many, many people do not do so.
Why not pay people for their organs. Obviously, no one can sell thei
Re:Economics 101 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Economics 101 (Score:2)
Well said. If everyone were selfless and altruistic, perhaps this wouldn't be a problem. But in the real world, capitalism almost always beats socialism.
Good idea (Score:2)
But one of my main problems is with who it goes to. This is the same reason
Subscription Fire... (Score:2, Informative)
Subscription fire departments don't ignore EMS and fire calls from people who didn't pay their premium - they just bill them on the back end.
Similarly, no priority is given by order of who paid up front and who didn't. EMS and fire calls are processed by order of severity, just like any non-subscriptio
Subscription F.D. & Disneyland - Phenomenally (Score:2)
I guess I've been doing without enough sleep, but a bit of trivia popped into my head about the concept of a subscription fire department.
As I recall, buildings in the U.S. in the 19th century were marked with a designation near the address that indicated what insurance company the owner used. Since fire departments were privately run by various insurance companies, the crews used these to determine if who should respond to a fire (no,
I think Life Sharers is fine. (Score:2)
The rules would be simple. You get on the list no matter what you do up to age 21, but if you haven't regestered by then, you don't get organs unless you do. AND if you register after age 21 you are not eligible for organs for 2 years after you declare yourself an organ doner. If you are not an organ doner by age 40 you cannot ever recieve a donated organ.
It isn't fair that peopl
I think (Score:3, Interesting)
China: Black Market for Organs Already Exists (Score:5, Informative)
Re:China: Black Market for Organs Already Exists (Score:4, Insightful)
We visited the mainland in January and I met her cousin who is an organ transplant surgeon. He spoke openly about how in China you can can examine a catalog of potential donors on death row with blood and tissue work already done. If you find a match you can designate ahead of time who will donate the body part that you need. When that persons time is up the surgeons are waiting to harvest.
The surgeon said he couldn't drink that night because he had surgery the next day. He joked how you wouldn't be able to do that in the US, ie schedule your transplant surgeries in advance. Many executions are done around the new year as a sort of cleansing/celebration/unrest quelling. The surgeon said that was a very busy time for him. I asked him whether they still bill the prisoners family for the bullet - they do. Strange when the body parts are worth much more than the bullet huh?
Given all that I bet if you are VIP in China and deathly ill that the execution of "your" prisoner might be pushed up?
One last thing people may not know that mitigates some of this. There are no voluntary donors. Everyone in China wants to be buried whole. It is VERY important to them. I joked that the world should adopt a system where only people who are willing to donate should receive organs because not every country allowed what China did.
My wife made a funny face and then translated. To the mainlanders at the dinner THAT was a funny idea. Why not use the prisoners that are full of shame and have hurt society?
Subscription Paramedics (OT) (Score:5, Informative)
I live in the city of Fullerton, CA. Like most municipalites in the U.S., it has faced a severe funding crunch over the past few years. In response, they have established a Paramedic Subscription Program [fullerton.ca.us]. Basically, if you call a paramedic, you get billed by the city $200 for Basic Life Support and $300 for Advanced Life Support [fullerton.ca.us]. If, on the other hand, you sign up for the service and pay an annual fee of $30, you do not pay. Ambulance costs (as they are pretty much everywhere in the U.S.) are not covered. Regardless of your payment status, though, they will come if you call.
While I have issues with calling paramedics and being charged in the first place (and, yes, I understand why they're doing it - to make ends meet and reduce frivilous calls), I can see where this fee makes a lot of sense to a business owner, who might see numerous 911 calls over a year (especially restaraunts, with choking/heart attack calls).
The Onion (Score:4, Funny)
Wired Article (Score:3, Informative)
Fluids and Tissues: $43million
Lungs: $116,000
Heart: $57,000
Eyes: $8,000
Brain: $662,000
Kidney: $92,000
Pancreas: $46,000
Small Intestine: $72,000
Liver: $474,000
There is a more detailed breakdown, but those are the major points.
Small story from reuters: It may be illegal, immoral and certainly ill-advised, but selling every usable part of your body could fetch upward of $45 million [reuters.com]
The first organization that learns to grow these organs individually will make a killing.
Re:Wired Article (Score:3, Insightful)
For what, a transplant? I'll volunteer to be a Brain Donor after my death, all right!
Become an organ donor! (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're not against it for any reason, you really ought to check it off. If you're against it, that's fine. But I know a lot of people who don't have a reason for not doing it, it was just too much work to check the box off or something?
Pesonally, I'd rather know that when I die, I (indirectly) save someone else's life. (And as someone once joked: "Remember, they're not taking your organs. They're keeping them alive for you.") If you don't have a problem saving a life after you die through organ donation, please consider making sure you indicate such next time you renew your license.
Just like the queues for bread in russia (Score:3, Insightful)
So, how to fix it?
- Third, stop preventing people from bidding on the open market to buy organs from donors.
I say "stop preventing" very deliberately here. The problem is not what people should be "allowed" to do, as if the default were slavery. The problem is the state acting as though it owned your body, live and, especially, dead. It steals the opton to make a personal gain, and then scratches its head at the shortage of people willing to give freebies. It should just get the hell out of the way. Then, normal market forces will expand donorship - and provide a natural incentive for companies to develop cloned in-vitro organs.Needless to say, every "solution" that is based on forcing donors will fail dismally. People will opt for cremation, or travel abroad to die. Nobody loves a thief, and especially not a grave-robber.
This is not a troll. This is not flamebait. I mean every word.
let the free market decide (Score:3, Insightful)
Consider this scenario. If two people are on the verge of drowning, I only have enough time to save one. Now, under the law, I don't have to save either. I'm not required to do anything to help them. Now, obviously I have a choice to make. I may make it based on several criteria, but however I choose is irrelevant -- one person is going to die, another is going to live.
1. I choose to try to save the thinnest person, who I am most likely to be able to drag out of the water.
2. If they are two women, maybe I save the most attractive one.
3. If one of them is my friend/family member, maybe I save him or her.
4. If one of them is my enemy, maybe I save the other person.
5. If I know one of them to be more intelligent than the other, maybe I save that one.
6. If I know one of them to be loved and cared about by more people than the other, then maybe I save that one.
7. If one of them is offering me a million dollars to save him or her, maybe I save that one*. Hell, I could choose by any other material or immaterial thing they were offering me.
* Though the person may honor the verbal contract, it is unlikely to be held up in court, as it constitutes contract at gunpoint.
8. Maybe I choose randomly.
and so on and so forth. The point is, there are many criterion by which we judge. I may not even judge consciously. As far as the law and Constitution is concerned, regarding our right to life, we all have equal share in that right, and are all equal as persons to be bestowed rights. However, let's not pretend that we -- as individuals -- don't make judgements everyday about who's life and happiness is more important to us.
Re:Buying organs ? (Score:2)
I wish you wouldn't talk against the "pro-life" stance, it really is quite simple, we don't want people to kill babies, their own, or somebody elses (boy-friend forced abortions are attempted, and sometimes successful). Just like I wouldn't want you to kill a 4 year-old, I wouldn't want you to kill a 4 month-old either.
Also, to the best of my knowle
Re:Buying organs ? (Score:2)
Re:This is a good idea (Score:3, Interesting)