 |
|
tinyp3nis
|
 |
compensate this!!
May 2002 time: 07:26
|
|
quote: I'd rather donate my organs to a criminal who has signed an organ donation card than some pr*ck who thinks he deserves to receive an organ without having to donate his after he dies. |
Everyone is like you, knows what you know...
Edit: And one last thing some pr*ck . Is this the issue or no? I still think we should consider the person as a whole. Not as easy as checking if he has filled a form or not but more fair.
Last edited by tinyp3nis on 05-03-2003 at 05:07
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000 time: 22:26
|
|
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
|
|
Big Up The Macedonian Massive
Apr 2000 time: 05:26
|
|
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
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000 time: 22:26
|
|
quote: 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
|
|
Big Up The Macedonian Massive
Apr 2000 time: 05:26
|
|
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.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
C0ckney
|
|
Big Up The Macedonian Massive
Apr 2000 time: 05:26
|
|
when $200,000 of public money is involved i think that some such judgement needs to be made.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
C0ckney
|
|
Big Up The Macedonian Massive
Apr 2000 time: 05:26
|
|
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.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26. Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|