Donor Conception (1 Viewer)

[Graney]

Um... You'd generally not be able to stop them, being dead or incapacitated.

The whole problem with organ donation (or indeed anything to do with belongings after death) is that frequently the deceased's wishes aren't respected.

Obviously the law would need to be tightened to prevent family's auctioning off body parts against the deceased's will.

Pretty easy to come up with a legal solution. 'The deceased's body parts may not be traded unless there's a solid contract with the deceased's signature filed with a relevant solicitor before the deceased's passing'.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Hahaaha, well played good sir. I wonder if they would consider putting something like blood donation on the list of volunteer services.

Not from me, apparently, being queer.

 

[katie tully]

Not from me, apparently, being queer.

Gay blood is as good as any blood.

 

[Graney]

Australia's position on organ and tissue donation is a marker of a civilized country which deems life more important than commerical profit.

Australia's current position leads to less than the maximum number of possible donations. If organs could be sold, less people would die.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Obviously the law would need to be tightened to prevent family's auctioning off body parts against the deceased's will.

Obviously society needs to respect dead people's wishes for the disposal/use of their body the same way as their material possessions.

 

[Iron]

Yes but as a principle, I think that it's unacceptable to put pricetags on human beings. Americans are fine with it and it has been their downfall.

eDIT GRANDYE

 

[katie tully]

Yes but as a principle, I think that it's unacceptable to put pricetags on human beings. Americans are fine with it and it has been their downfall.

eDIT GRANDYE

The only price tag would be the price of life to the recipient.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Gay blood is as good as any blood.

Tell that to the Red Cross.

If organs could be sold, less people would die.

Appeal to utility falls flat on its face when it only serves a specific demographic; in this case those who can afford it.

 

[katie tully]

I think their rationale is that there is a higher incidence of HIV/AIDS in the gay community, due to "apparent" higher incidences of narcotics use and butt secks. IDK, if a gay person doesn't have a blood bourne disease (and all blood is screened), I'd take it.

 

[Iron]

The only price tag would be the price of life to the recipient.

ERM and the pricetag the recipient and/or taxpayer has to foot to get the damned thing. I'm not comfortable with saying that you KT are only worth say 60,000$. Your conversauton is prcieless
Christian charity or nothing I say
This is how the economy shioulfd work

 

[katie tully]

You might not be happy putting a price tag on my life, but I'd be quite happy at my life being valued at $60,000 if it gave me another 20 years.

 

[Iron]

You might not be happy putting a price tag on my life, but I'd be quite happy at my life being valued at $60,000 if it gave me another 20 years.

Even if you had the knowledge that you had been reduced to such a relatively low material sum? You would no longer possess a human life. You'd be a total slave to commerical forces, a mere expendable unit of supply and demand

OH THE HUMANRIYT

Of course the individual would trade away such dignities given the chancve, which makes it allt he imore important that our govenrtntn is resolute about its moral convictions!

 

[Graney]

Appeal to utility falls flat on its face when it only serves a specific demographic; in this case those who can afford it.

Is it better to have a completely fair and equitable system of free organ exchange, where more people end up dying due to a lack of donations.
Or to preserve more lives at a cost to the fairness and egalitarian nature of the system?

Providing a market doesn't stop people from donating...

There are far from enough organs to go around at present as it is. So you're not necessarily depriving anyone, you're flooding the market, however the benefits may flow more towards those at the middle to upper income brackets.

 

[katie tully]

You're looking at it the wrong way dude. You're saying that by buying an organ, we're devaluing our own lives?

We're not suggesting, although Graney might be to some extent, that people just sell a kidney coz they only need one and it's a quick way to mae $60,000... If a person is brain dead and has no more use for their organs, what would be so wrong with the family selling the organs with prior consent from the donor?

I don't get your point. I'd be willing to say that living is worth a $60,000 kidney, because my will to live is invaluable. If that's what it costs to save me, I see it as no different to paying a few thousand dollars for cancer treatment. Either way, we put a value on our lives whenever we seek treatment, and if we relied on everything to be given as charity, the population would die out within a week.

 

[Graney]

I think their rationale is that there is a higher incidence of HIV/AIDS in the gay community, due to "apparent" higher incidences of narcotics use and butt secks. IDK, if a gay person doesn't have a blood bourne disease (and all blood is screened), I'd take it.

My understanding was HIV/AIDS wasn't always detectable for a period of months/years after first transmission, so it was impossible to 100% test for?

ERM and the pricetag the recipient and/or taxpayer has to foot to get the damned thing. I'm not comfortable with saying that you KT are only worth say 60,000$.

When you go to work for an employer and they pay you an hourly wage, isn't that you trading your precious, limited, time and life energy for a fixed sum?

Human life is constantly bought and sold in the workforce.

 

[katie tully]

My understanding was HIV/AIDS wasn't always detectable for a period of months/years after first transmission, so it was impossible to 100% test for?


When you go to work for an employer and they pay you an hourly wage, isn't that you trading your precious, limited, time and life energy for a fixed sum?

Human life is constantly bought and sold in the workforce.

Correct. Something like a three month gap. In blood donation, there is still no such thing as 100% certainty that the blood you're getting is disease free. Statistically speaking, it's virtually impossible but not improbable.

So they eliminate as many people as possible, the form is fucking epic.

It's quite odd too, because generally the blood product is split into functional groups like plasma and haemaglobin, so you're not going to get a full blood product from one donor.

 

[katie tully]

I'm saddened that Iron would rather see me die waiting for a charitable organ, than buy one... Coz it's the noble thing to do.

 

[Iron]

Na it's an unreasonable pressure to put on the less wealthy. We'd simply get rich people living longer and healthier lives because they can afford to, and poor people being resigned to shorter, unhealthier lives because they were born poor.
If a rich child and a poor child are born both needing a kidney eventually, it's a far better policy to leave it up to the donor's charity, rather than the heavier wallet. Because essentially, when you donate tissue, unlike in the workforce, youre donating a part of your individuality, not a random bit of property. No one can say what makes up a unique personality, so no one can simply list all the bits in a human body and say that this can be sold and that cant be sold without compromising that individual's life. I mean, where does it end? A brain in a vat with a few grimey bank notes squished into the gaps?!>?!?!
Allowing commerical pressures to enter the fray is totally demeaning to the sanctity of life. People must not be allowed to view themselves and others like common bags of meat. If they do, society crumbles

This raises all sorts of philosophical questions about consciousness and being which KFunk will walk us through momentarily.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Providing a market doesn't stop people from donating...

In practice in this context and in many others, I completely disagree. Personally I think this is why the system where people buy something for a donation will always work better than where people just donate.

But I don't know why people don't consider the easier option... Effectively managing donation would be a much better solution and solve many of these problems without actually creating more (as creating a trade has in other countries). See India as an example of a superficially successful system which itself relied on a key ingredient absent from our country: That a human is very cheap. The Middle East and China are also further examples of both apparently successful systems (which are actually incredibly problematic) and obviously unsuccessful systems which are simply driven by backward thinking common to those places. I'm no expert on the matter, but in short I haven't heard of either a successful system or a viable model for a country like Australia.

But anyway, it's a completely moot point as it will never be implemented here.

 

[Graney]

I just want to sell one of my kidneys and possibly part of my liver, is that so wrong