Pigs as organ donors

[Nearly Sane]

I don't think it's difficult.

If you've made your wishes re: organ donation official, your wishes carry the day. That's it. Some might say that objections from relatives are understandable if misguided, but not me - that doesn't seem to be borne out by one of the articles linked to above. Predominantly it seems to be based on the 'ick' factor (a dead relative being operated on to retrieve usable organs), which we don't allow to carry the day in other contexts.

People make wills and expect their wishes as enshrined therein to be respected. There's a legal avenue to challenge wills, but unless there are very good grounds for suspecting something genuinely amiss - mental imbalance or coercion - I don't agree with that any more than I do with the ability of relatives to override a person's altruistic wish to help others.

And yet we don't allow the cannibalism will. And the fact that wills are challenged for all sorts of reasons which you are happy with means the wishes of the dead are not always respected, and many of those challenges are on emotional grounds.

Rationally, I am not sure I see the case for respecting the wishes of the dead as that strong.

[ippy]

I've just paid the road tax for my car on line, they were promoting organ donation there, although I have already posted my willingness to donate on my licence, thought it'd be a good thing to underline it.

I've also donated any remaining parts of my bod, when I'm dead, to a good medical University for whatever purposes they like, let's face it none of it's worth much to any of us when we have finally gone on our way, it would more than likely save lives via helping to teach a new generation of doctors.

I'm all for organ donation, all Werlitzers, every single one, should be donated to be ground to powder before melting the powder down in a furnace with anything remaining dumped far out at sea.

ippy

[floo]

Let me make clear, I believe in an opt out policy not an opt in one but I think that respecting the wishes of the dead is not a simple principle.

If it is for the good of others, why is it hard to respect?

[Nearly Sane]

If it is for the good of others, why is it hard to respect?

It isn't but then you are adding respect the wishes of the dead 'if they are for the good of others'. Btw if the dead person wished to be eaten by someone who would be made happy bu it, would you support that?

[floo]

It isn't but then you are adding respect the wishes of the dead 'if they are for the good of others'. Btw if the dead person wished to be eaten by someone who would be made happy bu it, would you support that?

That is rather different as cannibalism is illegal. However, if they wished to be fed to zoo animals and that was permitted, I would have no problem with it. I just can't imagine why anyone would object to their relative's organs being used to help others.

[Nearly Sane]

That is rather different as cannibalism is illegal. However, if they wished to be fed to zoo animals and that was permitted, I would have no problem with it. I just can't imagine why anyone would object to their relative's organs being used to help others.

That something is legal or illegal here is irrelevant. You object to the relatives opinion being consideted but that is legal.

[floo]

That something is legal or illegal here is irrelevant. You object to the relatives opinion being consideted but that is legal.

The law states that consent lies with the deceased, but in practice, relatives' wishes are always respected.

In the case of organ donation relatives wishes should not be respected if they go against the wishes of the organ donor.

[Nearly Sane]

The law states that consent lies with the deceased, but in practice, relatives' wishes are always respected.

In the case of organ donation relatives wishes should not be respected if they go against the wishes of the organ donor.

They are respected because it isn't illegal to respect them. 

[floo]

They are respected because it isn't illegal to respect them.

It should be illegal not to give the donated organs to those who are in need of them.

[Nearly Sane]

It should be illegal not to give the donated organs to those who are in need of them.

So given legality isn't a reason to say something is wrong, what do you think about the cannibalism question?

[Shaker]

They are respected because it isn't illegal to respect them.

The failing of that is twofold:

(1) Something which is already a legal principle is routinely flouted in practice (#281);

(2) Laws change - by your own admission you support a change in English law* from an opt in to an opt out system.

* Opt out already exists in Wales and is in progress in Scotland.

[Nearly Sane]

The failing of that is twofold:

(1) Something which is already a legal principle is routinely flouted in practice (#281);

(2) Laws change - by your own admission you support a change in English law* from an opt in to an opt out system.

* Opt out already exists on Wales and Scotland.

Sorry, you appear a tad confused here. Respecting the wishes of the relatives is not illegal in Scotland or England. There is a difference between it being against a principle and being illegal.

And yes, Wales does have an opt out already, good for then but then they are from that viewpoint irrelevant to the discussion because they did the right thing in our opinions. Scottish govt plans to but we don't have it yet.

[Nearly Sane]

Interestingly there is the figure of 9 refusals last year in Wales, and I am not sure how that works in an Opt Out System.

[floo]

So given legality isn't a reason to say something is wrong, what do you think about the cannibalism question?

I suppose if it was legal to eat humans and there was a market for it, and someone wished to be served up for Sunday lunch I guess it would be ok, but don't invite me to partake.

[Nearly Sane]

I suppose if it was legal to eat humans and there was a market for it, and someone wished to be served up for Sunday lunch I guess it would be ok, but don't invite me to partake.

Why does it matter what's legal? We are talking about what should be legal! Are you saying if it was legal to kill and eat gay men that would be OK? No, so why indulge in a irrelevance?

[floo]

Why does it matter what's legal? We are talking about what should be legal! Are you saying if it was legal to kill and eat gay men that would be OK? No, so why indulge in a irrelevance?

It was you who brought up cannibalism, not me.

[Nearly Sane]

It was you who brought up cannibalism, not me.

And? Didn't say you did bring it up. We have established you think that legality isn't important to what you think should be legal.


ETA: just to note in the above post I am using 'you' to refer to Floo, not in the sense of 'one'

[floo]

And? Didn't say you did bring it up. We have established you think that legality isn't important to what you think should be legal.


ETA: just to note in the above post I am using 'you' to refer to Floo, not in the sense of 'one'

Sorry I have no idea what you are on about, but shall leave it at that.

[Sriram]

On organ donation...one more aspect needs to be considered.

It has been proven recently that people in a vegetative state actually do have consciousness and are even able to communicate using certain technology.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/09/vegetative-state-vagus-nerve-stimulation-health-science/

It has also been found that people believed to be dead (even brain dead) continue to have consciousness. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mind-works-after-death-consciousness-sam-parnia-nyu-langone-a8007101.html


Leaving aside the more dramatic aspects of life after death....the issue of organ removal under such conditions becomes relevant. The patient could very well be aware that his organs are being removed. A horrible situation.

[Shaker]

The consultation on introducing an opt-out/presumed consent system in England starts today: https://tinyurl.com/y7ncsfnr

[jeremyp]

I've never understood the pseudo-argument that any existence no matter how horrific is better than none.

How do you know that the pig regards its existence as horrific?

[Shaker]

How do you know that the pig regards its existence as horrific?

Oh I forgot - you're the one who denies the capacity for suffering in non-human animals, aren't you.

[jeremyp]

Oh I forgot - you're the one who denies the capacity for suffering in non-human animals, aren't you.

Answer the question.

[Shaker]

Bollocks.

[jeremyp]

Bollocks.

I'll take that as an admission that you can't answer the question which renders a fair amount of your position as invalid.