Pigs as organ donors

[Rhiannon]

There are some important statistics here.

http://www.itv.com/news/2013-02-11/the-facts-and-figures-and-myths-and-legends-of-organ-donation/

I thought it was closer to 5,000 people per year that die in circumstances where donation is possible.

[BeRational]

We do not need to do so. The solution to the shortage of organs is in our hands already without inflicting even more suffering on pigs. There are two solutions to the dearth of organs; one involves suffering to sentient creatures and one doesn't. The second is preferable. That solution too is tried and tested. We don't have to guess; we know it works.

We've covered all this before.

I am not sure there is suffering, and even if suffering was not involved, I am guessing you would still object?

I am happy to use both, as there is a shortage, plus you might be able to grow pig organs to be available at will rather than hoping someone compatible will die!

It might me possible to engineer a pigs organs to meet the requirements of the patient, rather than hoping for one to come along.

In that case farming engineered pigs organs would be a much better solution.

[Shaker]

I am not sure there is suffering, and even if suffering was not involved, I am guessing you would still object?

Correct.

I am happy to use both, as there is a shortage, plus you might be able to grow pig organs to be available at will rather than hoping someone compatible will die!

With such a massive disparity between those who need an organ and the total number of deaths you don't need to hope for it; you'll get it anyway

It might me possible to engineer a pigs organs to meet the requirements of the patient, rather than hoping for one to come along.

In that case farming engineered pigs organs would be a much better solution.

As above.

[BeRational]

Correct.
With such a massive disparity between those who need an organ and the total number of deaths you don't need to hope for it; you'll get it anyway
As above.

So suffering is irrelevant to your argument.

Just because more people die, does not mean you are bound to get a good match.

If you can grow pigs organs to be a best match for a patient, I would see that as the best way.

In addition, some people do NOT want to donate their organs, and their views take precedence over mine, and yours.

[floo]

But we can, and they work, so why not do so?

I think it is a good idea to use their organs if they work, we eat the flesh of pigs, so why not their organs too?

[BeRational]

I think it is a good idea to use their organs if they work, we eat the flesh of pigs, so why not their organs too?

Well, I agree.

We can farm them to eat, and I think we should also farm them for organs.

I see no problem with this at all.

[Rhiannon]

Correct.
With such a massive disparity between those who need an organ and the total number of deaths you don't need to hope for it; you'll get it anyway
As above.

The problem is that there isn't a disparity, in fact the numbers of suitable deaths to the numbers of people on the waiting lists are very close. This is why every donor matters, why we need an opt out system and why families that overrule their dead relative's wishes are being devastatingly cruel, however unwittingly.

[BeRational]

The problem is that there isn't a disparity, in fact the numbers of suitable deaths to the numbers of people on the waiting lists are very close. This is why every donor matters, why we need an opt out system and why families that overrule their dead relative's wishes are being devastatingly cruel, however unwittingly.

If there was a suitable pig organ, would you think it would be acceptable to use that?

[Shaker]

So suffering is irrelevant to your argument.

Far from it, but it's not the only strand of the argument.

Just because more people die, does not mean you are bound to get a good match.

Actually it pretty much does. The number of those in need of an organ is around 7,000. That's a sizeable village. The total number of deaths each year is around 500,000. That's roughly equivalent to Manchester. Rhiannon correctly pointed out that people need to die in certain ways and with necessary conditions to be eligible to donate organs, so you can rule out a certain percentage of that half million immediately. Nevertheless it's a perfectly reasonable assumption that the remainder - those who are eligible to donate - will be so large that it will more than supply the demand for donated organs. And that's even in the absence of the opt-out system which we ought to have by now.

In addition, some people do NOT want to donate their organs, and their views take precedence over mine, and yours.

The selfish, like the poor, are always with us.

[BeRational]

Shaker

Actually it pretty much does. The number of those in need of an organ is around 7,000. That's a sizeable village. The total number of deaths each year is around 500,000. That's roughly equivalent to Manchester. Rhiannon correctly pointed out that people need to die in certain ways and with necessary conditions to be eligible to donate organs, so you can rule a certain percentage of that half million immediately. Nevertheless It's a perfectly reasonable assumption that the remainder - those who are eligible to donate - will be so large that it will more than supply the demand for donated organs.

So why is there a problem to discuss?

Because people have not opted in which is their choice.

Also, genetically engineered pigs organs I would think would be much better. They can be made to be not rejected by the patient, and be created to order.

If this can be done, it would be a much better solution, than hoping for a suitable match.

If a little girl need 100 pigs to die to save her, I would say "line em up".

[Rhiannon]

If there was a suitable pig organ, would you think it would be acceptable to use that?

I am sceptical about this being a good idea. Organ rejection is not uncommon in human to human transplantation and I'm not yet convinced by the science.

Aside from that, in theory I am with Shaker. But theory and reality aren't the same thing.

[Shaker]

Shaker

So why is there a problem to discuss?

Various reasons.

One is that more people say that organ donation is a good thing than get round to doing anything about it.

If this can be done, it would be a much better solution, than hoping for a suitable match.

Clearly you are again giving the lie to your username by not reading what has been written before.

If a little girl need 100 pigs to die to save her, I would say "line em up".

Yes, I know you would.

Sentimental appeal to emotion noted, though.

[Rhiannon]

I'm not sure it's fair to think that those who won't consent to donation are selfish. Confused, mixed up, scared. Yes.

The article says that the girl's dad was reluctant to give up her heart. It's not rational but I can understand it. And harvesting organs is a full on surgical procedure and I can see how that is upsetting, I know people who feel like that about autopsies.

People who are bereaved and in shock aren't best placed to judge most of the time. Hence the need for an opt out, better awareness and better training for those who need to ask relatives for consent.

[BeRational]

Various reasons.

One is that more people say that organ donation is a good thing than get round to doing anything about it.
Clearly you are again giving the lie to your username by not reading what has been written before.
Yes, I know you would.

Sentimental appeal to emotion noted, though.

It is you that is emotional by thinking that pigs are equal to humans.

They are not.

Genetically engineered pig organs, if they can be done, I think would be a much better solution for human patients.

Unless of course every patient has a twin that dies just when they need an organ.

[Shaker]

It is you that is emotional by thinking that pigs are equal to humans.

They are not.

They are in the morally relevant criterion, i.e. sentience.

[BeRational]

They are in the morally relevant criterion, i.e. sentience.

To you, but not to me.

They are a different species that have insufficient sentience for me to care about.

They are a resource, and a potential way to have organs that perfectly match a patients requirement.

You will not get a human match that could be as good as a genetically engineered pig organ, so you are in favour of inferior organs for patients.

[Shaker]

To you, but not to me.

They are a different species that have insufficient sentience for me to care about.

As I said a long while back, you can't have a discussion about suffering with someone who doesn't care about suffering.

Of course, if it was really about insufficient sentience then we could harvest organisms from the severely mentally handicapped. If that's unacceptable then you're thrown back on the arbitrary and irrational stance of speciesism.

They are a resource, and a potential way to have organs that perfectly match a patients requirement.

To you, but not to me.

You will not get a human match that could be as good as a genetically engineered pig organ, so you are in favour of inferior organs for patients.

Any evidence for this?

[BeRational]

To you, but not to me.
Any evidence for this?

If pig organ can be genetically engineered to be a match, then it is a match.

You cannot do this sort of engineering in humans.

Your problem is that you do not want to use pigs. That is the whole of your argument.

I do not care that you do not want to use pigs, so you have no real argument.

[Rhiannon]

If this works then in theory nobody would need dialysis because organs would be readily available. But it's a big if.

[Shaker]

If

I asked for evidence, not an if.

Your problem is that you do not want to use pigs.

That, I assure you, is absolutely no problem to me. Rather, a problem to you. And of course a great many pigs.

I do not care that you do not want to use pigs, so you have no real argument.

You've made your callous indifference to suffering abundantly clear.

[BeRational]

If this works then in theory nobody would need dialysis because organs would be readily available. But it's a big if.

I agree it is a big if, but there are threads on Google showing that this is being worked on.

http://time.com/4896026/pig-organs-humans-crispr-genome-editing/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/pig-human-transplant-organs-xenotransplantation-crispr-cas9-pervs-porcine-retrovirus-a7887071.html

This does not mean that if will be possible, but IF it was, I cannot see a problem with it, and more, I think it would be a fantastic breakthrough.

I think people like Shaker would still not approve, even if the science proves to be sound, and transplants effective.

[Shaker]

Correct.

[BeRational]

I asked for evidence, not an if.
That, I assure you, is absolutely no problem to me. Rather, a problem to you. And of course a great many pigs.
You've made your callous indifference to suffering abundantly clear.

This suffering is a complete lie, and a red herring.

At NO point have I advocated suffering, and I say now that I am AGAINST suffering. So please do not lie about my position again.

Just because might be raised as organ donors, this does not mean that they have to suffer.

I get that you do not want the pigs used in this way, but I do.

It is just a difference of opinion.

[BeRational]

Correct.

Then you have no argument.

It is just emotion for the pigs.

I do not care that pigs are harvested (without suffering), so there is nothing to discuss.

[Shaker]

This suffering is a complete lie, and a red herring.

At NO point have I advocated suffering, and I say now that I am AGAINST suffering. So please do not lie about my position again.

You advocate eating meat and animal experimentation. Perhaps in your la-la Ladybird land these things don't cause suffering, but in the real world they do on unimaginable scales. Therefore you advocate suffering and don't have the minerals to admit as much.