Should a convicted killer get a liver transplant?- and other organ donation issues

[tinyp3nis]

I don't care if he rapes little boys for fun, either.

You go to great lengths to keep your original opinion.
OKok, you might have had this opinion from the start, but nevertheless

[Dis]

they never asked me to sign for it when I got my drivers liscence

In any case back then I felt I wasn't very healthy, and no one would want my crappy organs . I felt I could do better good by not giving my unhealthy organs to other people.

But I'm starting to realize I'm a fairly healthy people. I have noticed this after I seen what people do to their bodies . I am exposed to a lot of second hand smoke though . Part of the job description of a male stripper.

[Joseph]

No. And I mean no.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
After this we can include, Boris' suggestion of parents with children younger than 18.

Huh? I didn't suggest that at all. In fact, I don't agree with it at all!

[Flubber]

If there are enough livers, then anyone that needs one gets one. If there are not enough then, like it or not, we need a system to determine who gets a liver and survives and also who does not and dies.

Most of the suggestions are various attempts to "rank" people by some criteria based on some ideas of merit. I actually like Frogger's idea of giving signed organ donors priority in getting organs. If EVERYONE signed the donor cards, we should have enough organs that no one need die due to lack of a suitable organ ( excepting out rare blood types I imagine).

Other attempts to set up a meritocracy to determine ranking would fall down based on the divergent things that people happen to value. For example, the parenthood factor was trumpeted by some but panned by others. I don't have a problem with trying to come up with a better way to prioritize who gets organs but I fear that it is doomed to failure--

[C0ckney]

i have no problem with criminals getting organ transplants, as long as no else more deserving (and by more deserving i mean anyone other than a convicted killer) needs one...

[Flubber]

Originally posted by C0ckney
i have no problem with criminals getting organ transplants, as long as no else more deserving (and by more deserving i mean anyone other than a convicted killer) needs one...

The whole issue is in determining who is more deserving. Most people would have no issue with giving a liver to an innocent 21 year old in preference to a multiple murderer for instance but that is the easy case. What about if its not a murderer but an embezzler? Or you take out pout into the outside world and your candidates might be an alcoholic mother of 3 that destroyed her first liver with booze and a career petty thief that lost his liver to disease unrelated to behavior. If that choice is too easy, you can switch factors around until you get one where people would be 50-50 on the merits of the individuals needing the liver.

Determining merit is very hard. Are you not implicitly trying to value one human life against another? I shudder to think that anyone would find that easy.

[C0ckney]

i know that it is rarely black and white, but i hardly think that it would take a great effort to find someone who deserves a second chance more than this woman.

[KrazyHorse]

I just don't think that a medical organisation should be in the business of morally evaluating their patients to decide on treatment.

[C0ckney]

when $200,000 of public money is involved i think that some such judgement needs to be made.

[KrazyHorse]

No it doesn't, sweetie.

You do have socialised health care in Britain, don't you? Every operation here, at lest, involves expenditure of public monies. Doesn't mean that the State has the right to dictate the terms of treatment. Doctors do that, without regard to their personal opinion of the worth of the life involved (I hope).

[C0ckney]

i don't propose that doctors start to take those kind of decisions, merely that those who control the purse strings give priority to people who are not convicted killers.

[KrazyHorse]

Are you having troubles reading?

Doesn't mean that the State has the right to dictate the terms of treatment

[Dis]

more yes's than I expected.

There will be those who say- where do we draw the line?

Well we could draw the line on life sentences with no possiblity of parole. Anything equal to or higher than that should not get a transplant as they will never have the opportunity to be productive members of society.

Although an exemption should be allowed if the recipient also agrees to donate their organs.

[Ramo]

Why the hell does it matter if they're "productive members of society?" What the hell is a "productive member of a society?" Do you think that the uneducated poor don't deserve to get transplants?