Ethical and moral standards for the 21st century

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

The 21st century already began and our conservative societies of today are still battling over ideas that have a century-long tradition without making any progress. I'm talking about stuff like abortion, euthanasia for sick people to end their suffering, gay marriage or legal drug use. Some people already take these things for granted and I am sure that at least in the European Union they'll become reality within the next decade. But what then? As progress never stops there'll most certainly be topics people have to argue about then. What will these topics be? As I consider part of my own role in this world to convince people to abandon outdated and dubious morals and ethical standards I think I'd throw out some topics into Current Events to get some ideas about them.

 

I'll start with a relatively light one that's not too shocking in the eyes of the conservative beholder. I suggest that in times of organ shortages organs will be removed from dead people even if it's against their will.

 

This is not too shocking as there's at least one country in the Western world that already does that: Belgium, world's pinnacle of progress, next to the Netherlands. In Belgium consent to remove one's organs is automatically assumed when a person dies unless the person opted out at a local town hall before. This way the organs can be immediately removed once a person dies and no time is wasted for any consent of the relatives.

The arguments and their justifcation for introducing such a law are obvious. A nation has to make sure it's people survive and the right of the Living to survive are more important than any of the Dead's rights. People can complain about this while they're still alive but just not wanting it doesn't really matter. The only fishy situation that might occur is when people oppose this for religious reasons. That's unfortunate but I just postulate the right to survive higher than the right to freedom of religion. And just to remove all doubt I don't accept any religious definition of being alive or dead, only the medical definition matters.

Now the question remains, should people be able to opt out like it's possible in Belgium? I think they should be able to do so. Not because I value any of the rights of a dead person or his relatives over a living person's rights but just because no significant number will ever opt out, especially in non-religious parts of the world. This way we can make everybody happy and still have enough organs to distribute among our needy.

 

You might have realized by now that my argumentation is by no means very structured. Maybe the reason for this is that I haven't yet heard most of the other reasons to support or reject such a proposal. Yep, that's why I post this here. Go.

 

 

EDITED because I can't write something this long without screwing up or making massive typos or grammar errors.

[Guest Ace309]

Quibble.

 

And just to remove all doubt I don't accept any religious definition of being alive or dead, only the medical definition matters.

 

Of course, then you run into the fact that there is no one specific definition of death. (I'm taking a course in medical ethics this semester for no apparent reason, and this was actually one of the issues we discussed. Whee @ the chance to put some of this into practice.) Do you mean brain death? Cardio-pulmonary cessation? Dag, yo, he just looks dead? Each of these present specific issues ranging from taking organs from what would otherwise have been a living being by some medical definition to compromised "freshness" (for lack of a better term) of the organs.

 

Also, how wide is support for routine salvage of organs? It's important to consider that as far as many people are concerned, even without religious reasons the body of a dead relative is sacred or holds an inherent dignity that is violated by removal of the organs. A) Would the organ pool withstand the backlash of people who organized mass opt-outs to protest routine salvage? B) How would you propose the hospitals deal with individuals who choose to donate but whose families object? I'm fuzzy on this, but I believe under the current system the hospital will yield to the family above and beyond the wishes of the individual. Do you really see a doctor in the United States saying, "I realize you object to the salvage of organs, but I'm taking your grandfather's kidneys anyway?"

 

For the record, I support routine salvage with opt-out. I'm just trying to raise some points.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

On the religious point, what modern religion specifically states against removing one's organs?

 

I can see egyptian pharoahs being concerned about this, but today?

[Guest DrTom]

I like the current opt-in system. Hey, they're your organs, even if you're dead, and you shouldn't give them up unless you want to.

[Guest DrTom]

On the religious point, what modern religion specifically states against removing one's organs?

Well, the Chinese culture only recently lifted the ban on autopsies, and it's still illegal to depict things like skeletons in artwork over there. So it's quite possible their dominant religion (Taoism, I guess, though I could easily be wrong) has something against taking organs from the dead, even with consent.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

The current system works for me.

 

As for a deceased person wanted to donate and the family being against it. I'd say they have no say, but if anyone know any laws that would allow a family to stop a hospital from harvesting organs.

 

Sorry to go slightly off topic so soon in the thread. But, how many are organ donors?

[Guest TheMikeSC]

The 21st century already began and our conservative societies of today are still battling over ideas that have a century-long tradition without making any progress. I'm talking about stuff like abortion, euthanasia for sick people to end their suffering, gay marriage or legal drug use. Some people already take these things for granted and I am sure that at least in the European Union they'll become reality within the next decade. But what then? As progress never stops there'll most certainly be topics people have to argue about then. What will these topics be? As I consider part of my own role in this world to convince people to abandon outdated and dubious morals and ethical standards I think I'd throw out some topics into Current Events to get some ideas about them.

 

I'll start with a relatively light one that's not too shocking in the eyes of the conservative beholder. I suggest that in times of organ shortages organs will be removed from dead people even if it's against their will.

 

This is not too shocking as there's at least one country in the Western world that already does that: Belgium, world's pinnacle of progress, next to the Netherlands. In Belgium consent to remove one's organs is automatically assumed when a person dies unless the person opted out at a local town hall before. This way the organs can be immediately removed once a person dies and no time is wasted for any consent of the relatives.

The arguments and their justifcation for introducing such a law are obvious. A nation has to make sure it's people survive and the right of the Living to survive are more important than any of the Dead's rights. People can complain about this while they're still alive but just not wanting it doesn't really matter. The only fishy situation that might occur is when people oppose this for religious reasons. That's unfortunate but I just postulate the right to survive higher than the right to freedom of religion. And just to remove all doubt I don't accept any religious definition of being alive or dead, only the medical definition matters.

Now the question remains, should people be able to opt out like it's possible in Belgium? I think they should be able to do so. Not because I value any of the rights of a dead person or his relatives over a living person's rights but just because no significant number will ever opt out, especially in non-religious parts of the world. This way we can make everybody happy and still have enough organs to distribute among our needy.

 

You might have realized by now that my argumentation is by no means very structured. Maybe the reason for this is that I haven't yet heard most of the other reasons to support or reject such a proposal. Yep, that's why I post this here. Go.

 

 

EDITED because I can't write something this long without screwing up or making massive typos or grammar errors.

One HUGE problem with taking organs ---

 

This will lead to less-than-strenuous attempts to save lives.

 

Let's say you have a man in a coma. He might not come out of it.

 

Down the hall, there is a person who needs a kidney. For the heck of it, let's say that the comatose guy is destitute and the kidney-needing chap is rich beyond words.

 

Am I the only who could see hospitals deciding to pull the plug on the comatose guy to give his organs to the person who needs it?

 

This is a potentially VERY slippery slope that we might be well advised to not go down.

-=Mike

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Fuck the dead. If it's still useable, take it. I know I wouldn't mind.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Do you mean brain death? Cardio-pulmonary cessation? Dag, yo, he just looks dead?

Well, that's a good point.

 

My own issue is the doctor taking people on life support and pulling the plug early so he can sell the bits & pieces of the body and get a new BMW.

 

Would you rather support cloned organs instead? Or how about collecting the organs of executed criminals?

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Do you mean brain death? Cardio-pulmonary cessation? Dag, yo, he just looks dead?

Well, that's a good point.

 

My own issue is the doctor taking people on life support and pulling the plug early so he can sell the bits & pieces of the body and get a new BMW.

 

Would you rather support cloned organs instead? Or how about collecting the organs of executed criminals?

Cloned organs? I'm vigorously opposed to cloning regardless, so definitely no on that.

 

Organs from executed criminals? No. They do have the right to their own body.

-=Mike

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Am I the only who could see hospitals deciding to pull the plug on the comatose guy to give his organs to the person who needs it?

Well, I mentioned it above. I think about that a lot, too, but I think if we had an opt-out policy there wouldn't BE an organ shortage, organs would be worth a lot less, and you wouldn't have that problem.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Am I the only who could see hospitals deciding to pull the plug on the comatose guy to give his organs to the person who needs it?

Well, I mentioned it above. I think about that a lot, too, but I think if we had an opt-out policy there wouldn't BE an organ shortage, organs would be worth a lot less, and you wouldn't have that problem.

We really need to worry about the worst-case scenario.

 

You never plan based on the best-case.

-=Mike

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Organs from executed criminals? No. They do have the right to their own body.

-=Mike

How? Who owns your organs when you die? You don't, since you're dead; your heirs might, but they cannot dispose of them in any way or derive any benefit from them, and they also decay in just a few hours (one of the big problems with opt-in consent is finding family members to give it in the first place.) There was a case (Moore v. Regents Board of Cal.) with a ruling which said that Moore had no rights to profit from a stem line he couldn't have grown himself; the legal framework is there. (Granted, the case sucked, but that part of it makes a lot of sense to me.)

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

I'd like to note that I endorse taking organs from the dead if organ cloning is outlawed.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

[We really need to worry about the worst-case scenario.

 

You never plan based on the best-case.

-=Mike

Simple. Make the selling of organs illegal. They're only used for transfer, not for sale.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Organs from executed criminals? No. They do have the right to their own body.

        -=Mike

How? Who owns your organs when you die? You don't, since you're dead; your heirs might, but they cannot dispose of them in any way or derive any benefit from them, and they also decay in just a few hours (one of the big problems with opt-in consent is finding family members to give it in the first place.) There was a case (Moore v. Regents Board of Cal.) with a ruling which said that Moore had no rights to profit from a stem line he couldn't have grown himself; the legal framework is there. (Granted, the case sucked, but that part of it makes a lot of sense to me.)

You possess the parts of your body until your death. That is the one thing you unequivocably own.

 

There is something awfully barbaric about stealing body parts from dead people.

-=Mike

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Yes, and I'm talking about AFTER your death.

 

What would a dead guy need with a liver or a femur for? I mean, he's not going to notice that its missing now will he? What if its for you or your child's survival?

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Yes, and I'm talking about AFTER your death.

 

What would a dead guy need with a liver or a femur for? I mean, he's not going to notice that its missing now will he? What if its for you or your child's survival?

Situational ethics is not a good idea.

 

I have huge problems with the entire concept of stealing part. Even if it saves my life, I wouldn't ask ANYBODY to take ANY parts off of a cadavre. If somebody wishes to make their organs free to others, then they will make it clear.

 

If they do not, we do not have the right to ASSUME that it is what they want.

-=Mike

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

It's not stealing if it's implied with the ability to opt-out, is it?

[Guest Ace309]

I'm not sure that the taking of organs from a dead body constitutes "situational ethics" vis a vis harvesting from living humans. I'd say that at the moment of death, under whatever the controlling criterion might be (an issue I'm going to dodge, because I feel like being a bad debater right now), the person moves from one state to another in a morally and ethically relevant way. It's not like taking someone's watch while he's awake and taking it while he's sleeping; in fact, it's not even like the difference between a doctor taking a patient's watch during surgery with intent to profit and that same doctor taking the same watch for the same reason after death.

 

As far as I'm concerned, the person is a person before death, and an inanimate, lifeless body that is the possession of the next of kin after death. The body, for the purposes of burial etc, should be treated with a certain amount of care and dignity, just as the personal effects are.

 

However, that said, organs are considerably different than that Rolex for a few reasons... most obviously, that the organ has a direct value for someone else above and beyond monetary compensation or material wealth, and that it becomes useless within a very short time after death.

 

I believe that routine salvage with opt-out is the way to go. However, I recognize that there are problems with it. My solution? *shrug* I'm just making sure that my family knows that I want my organs donated. I personally can't imagine why someone would feel any differently, but if you do, well, that's your choice.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Clone organs, but keep it illegal to SELL organs.

[Guest DrTom]

Opt-in is the way to go. I'm opposed to cloning (we've been down that road before in this folder) and the opt-out system. Heck, a lot of people can't opt out of mailing lists online, and all that's at stake there is some junk mail in their inbox. I'm not willing to dismantle someone's body just because they didn't get the piece of mail allowing them to opt out. If the deceased wished to be an organ donor (opt-in, as I did), or if the family wishes to give up the organs, then fine. Otherwise, no.