CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
If there is a shortage of organ donors (and there usually is), I would support this.
It's true that you would be going against the wishes of many people, but remember that these are the wishes of people who have died. By going against their wishes, you can save still-living people from dying.
It seems pretty obvious to me that the latter is a more important consideration than the former.
I understand what you mean and I also quite agree. But as long as there is no shortage, I am not going to support it. Only if people want. Otherwise this is a violation of the free will of people.
"Only if people want. Otherwise this is a violation of the free will of people"
Free will is a life right, meaning that the right is voided in death. A corpse cannot make choices. In an age where we have the capabilities to utilize any body part needed it is only logical that we utilize that of deceased persons that otherwise would be a waste of completely usable material.
Long time no see..........had a new little grandbaby born.....just enjoying her. Plus I am exhausted because it is so hot outside.......its been between 110 and 113. Its hell.
So if your little child died.....and I wanted to harvest part of her body....you would have no problem? Well many people would have a problem and it is not your right to take someone elses child dead of alive for your own personal use.
"So if your little child died.....and I wanted to harvest part of her body....you would have no problem?"
I wouldn't have a problem, it's not like I would dig up my kid to look at it afterwords, at least this way it goes to benefit something(although little children organs don't get much use). I'd rather my body or my loved one's body be used to help people rather then waste away.
" Well many people would have a problem and it is not your right to take someone elses child dead of alive for your own personal use."
It's not for my own personal use, it's to aid those who suffer from the fact that there are often shortages of extra organs. In the mean while, people selfishly take it to the grave with them, even though no matter what you believe, you have no use for it.
Well the way you put things always sounds so cruel and harsh I must say. I know you mean well, wanting to help those in need but it still is not your right to take what isn't yours, even if its dead.
I would want someone to harvist anything off me if it would help someone else. But it is my decision not anyone elses. Thankfully there are enough people who are kind that do just that...donate organs and tissue. My husband just had back surgery and a kind someone donate tissue for his procedure.
This is not the governments business, they have no right to force what is suggested here.
"but it still is not your right to take what isn't yours, even if its dead."
You make it sound like I am taking it myself, this is a government run operation.
"But it is my decision not anyone elses. "
My point though is that your choices in the matter cease to matter after death. You really have no use for your body when you die. It is nothing short of selfish to defend such wastefulness.
"donate organs and tissue."
There are common shortages of needed organs all the time.
"This is not the governments business, they have no right to force what is suggested here."
Why not? This is not cruel mandate and it has no effect on the living population.
Well, there is an shortage of organ donors, so like a busybody that you are, then you already do support this. There is a shortage because many people hopelessly wishing for an organ from the long government waiting list.
Forcing mandatory organ donor would actually make things worse. Instead of forcing mandatory organ donor, people need incentives, and exchanging monetary values for organs is a excellent way for people to get organs that they need.
This article explains what happens with government organ donor waiting lists.
I think it's quite apparent that I was talking about the donations of organs from dead bodies. Financial incentives would be of limited effectiveness in this situation.
Living organ donation, like the example raised in that article, is a very different matter. I wouldn't support mandatory donations for living organs; it's too heavy an imposition. I'm undecided on the matter of offering financial incentives for living organ donations. On the one hand, like I say, it is a heavy imposition, and one that stays with you for life; I don't think poor people should feel pressured into doing it out of desperate need for money. On the other hand, if someone believes that they'd rather be short of a kidney and have more money than have both kidneys and no money, that's their personal choice... But I might consider a policy whereby criminals with long imprisonment terms can get part of their sentence cut if they donate an organ. That way they can do some genuine good for the community.
Another problem with the money-for-organs idea is: where will all this money come from? The reward will have to be quite substantial in order to persuade people to part from their own organs. If it's offered from the public coffers, it'll be a massive burden on a government that is already in debt. And if the cost is to be borne by the patients themselves, it'll create a huge social injustice in that only rich people will be able to get organ transplants.
And can you elaborate on your statement that forcing mandatory donations (from dead bodies) would make things worse than they are now?
And can you elaborate on your statement that forcing mandatory donations (from dead bodies) would make things worse than they are now?
Before death, it is their body, so what happens with their physical body after death should still be of their personal choice. You don't own their body nor does the government.
It's true that personal choice is important and should be respected whenever reasonably possible, but sometimes it should be curtailed for a greater benefit.
Do you really think it's worse for someone's wish to be disregarded than for someone to die? Especially when the person whose wish is to be disregarded is already dead, whereas the other person has a life that can still be saved?
It's true that personal choice is important and should be respected whenever reasonably possible, but sometimes it should be curtailed for a greater benefit.
There is nothing more important than personal choice, individually, humans have nothing else than choice. Choice is what separates us from animals. Personal choice should never ever be curtailed for the greater benefit.
Do you really think it's worse for someone's wish to be disregarded than for someone to die?
Yes, because again, you don't own their body nor does the government, apparently, you like to think that you or the government owns other peoples' bodies. If the dead person had no wishes of his organs upon death, then it would be next of kin.
Especially when the person whose wish is to be disregarded is already dead, whereas the other person has a life that can still be saved?
Well, this is an great example of why giving up monetary exchanges for organs will create incentives either dead or alive.
Truthfully, if I was that dying person and I heard that there was a organ available for me, but it was not the wish of that person or payment, it would seem as if I am taking his property or body from his without permission. His organ is not my to take without permission.
If personal choice is never curtailed no matter what, and we'd rather let people die than let people's wishes be disregarded, we'd be faced with, say, this situation:
A crowded building catches fire, but the police and the firefighters have no right to make people get out of the building quickly and keep the exits clear. Where people choose to hang around is their personal choice, and if the people behind them get trapped and die in the fire, that's tough luck.
This building has a lot of expensive and delicate equipment. The building's owner thinks that some of the equipment may be salvageable if you let the fire burn out of its own accord, whereas if you try to quench it with water, all the equipment will be ruined beyond repair. What other people are permitted to do to his property is restricted to what he permits them to do, so he forbids the firefighters from putting out the fire. If the fire guts the building and then spreads to neighbouring buildings, that's also tough luck.
And nowhere am I claiming that the government owns its citizens' bodies; I wish you'd stop attributing to me positions that I don't hold in the attempt to anger me. Straw men are poor insults anyway. What I'm saying is that the government should be allowed to interfere with private decisions (and also private property) if there is a genuine and serious need.
As for the monetary reward option, I'm not completely against it, but I have doubts about its efficacy that I raised earlier.
If those people choose to remain in the burning building, it is a personal choice, and with those choices, they must bear the consequences even if it is death. Most people don't want to bear the responsibility for their decisions. Police and firefighters have no right to force them out, the people are merely taking their suggestion. For some reason, why are you protecting their bad decisions with force? Firefighters and police forcing them out is really unnecessary. They get paid regardless of whether they live or die.
I wouldn't call this tough luck, it is pure stupidity. Tough luck would be if someone walked across the street everyday, but one day, the bus driver losses his brakes and control, and the guy was killed.
This building has a lot of expensive and delicate equipment...
If the owner of the building is unwillingly to put out the fire with water due to fear of destroying the equipment, he must bear the consequences if the building spreads to neighborhood buildings even if manslaughter.
Fun little situations though. Did you come up with yourself?
And nowhere am I claiming that the government owns its citizens' bodies; I wish you'd stop attributing to me positions that I don't hold in the attempt to anger me.
It is fun though.
What I'm saying is that the government should be allowed to interfere with private decisions (and also private property) if there is a genuine and serious need.
What I am saying that government should never to allowed to interfere with any private decisions. The only decision applicable to them is aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud.
Of course I came up with the scenario myself; I didn't plagiarise them from someone else. They may have actually happened in real life, or not; I have no idea. But they are reasonably possible situations, as in you wouldn't be terribly surprised if something like that made the news.
I don't mean it's tough luck for the people who choose to remain in the building... I'm talking about the fate of the people who are further in the building, and really want to get out but can't, because people in front of them are blocking their way. Do the authorities have no right to move the people in the front so that the people behind them have a chance to run to safety?
And do you seriously think it's better for the firefighters to stand around and twiddle their thumbs, instead of putting out the fire and saving lives... just because the building's owner is desperate and panicking, and doesn't want his precious property (which are already stuck in a burning building and probably on fire o_o) to be soaked in water?
If you truly think that the government should never ever be allowed to interfere with personal choices, I think you'd have to say yes to both. And I think they'd be quite hard to justify as reasonable and fair decisions. Hence why I say that there should occasionally be times when the government can interfere.
I believe in making yes the default or standard, and allowing for people to easily opt-out of the arrangement if it makes them uncomfortable, they have health concerns, or it goes against their faith. Voluntary donation sure isn't doing the trick, supply-wise, at the moment...
From an ethical standpoint, no one should be forced to be an organ donor. Also, we are making great scientific progress on growing organs essentially from scratch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAI5rLnnCBE
But until such processes can be used in a everyday basis we should utilize what we have instead of compromising living bodies. Free will ends when there is no will.
The complications involved in making it mandatory will take much longer than getting that technology to a wide usage. Families, religions, and different cultures everywhere will believe it to be a disgrace (even though it isn't) to them.
Well, unless you want to have an oppressive government you want to follow the will of the people, no matter how stupid their values are. If not, such a government is destined to be overthrown.
A government that holds the well being of the living over the dead isn't oppressive. The free will of the people are being met, those who still have a will.
"If not, such a government is destined to be overthrown"
Why? You seem to be suggesting that a government concerned what the living would be noneffective and controlling, I don't see how the topic indicates either. How many times have you had a body dug up just to look at? None, they are wasting away when they could have otherwise possibly been used to aid people in need.
The will of the families would be violated, and the people would definitely respond violently. Look up all the different customs that have specific rituals. Many of these ritual (while silly) would be interrupted by the harvesting of organs. Thus the government couldn't tell those people to "shut up and do what we want" with out being oppressive. And history shows us that when that happens, they usually get overthrown.
No one should be forced to be a mandatory organ doner! Eveyone has a free will, and just because a person is deceased dosent mean that "will" ends! And it definetly dosent mean the government has control over any body ! Yes, when you're dead you cant make desicions, but ofcourse thats what life is for, and that is why you make the decision to be an organ doner when your alive... If someone makes the decsion not to be an organ doner when they're alive, then under no circumstances should that choice be ignored when they're dead !
No, it's people's own choice. Maybe it belongs to a faith that can not, you do not know, because not all faiths are known and there are many reasons to have and own choice.
But if you have a living possible donor and a dead donor, and the transplant will save a patients life, why should we compromise a living body when the deceased no longer lives? What Use do they have of the parts? It may seem wrong and in violation of rights, but the rights of the living take priority over rights of the dead, and I recall the first right listed as being life, therefore under the rights listed by the US constitution(if you live in a another country pardon) the dead body legally has no jurisdiction over the continued possession of their body.
Yes, it could save another persons life...but it's YOUR body, and you can do whatever you choose to do with it. If you do not want to be an organ donor, you shouldn't be forced. It's a choice, whether or not its saving someone elses life. Your body, your choice.
it doesn't matter what someone "should" do ! It's about what someone is entitled, and not entitled to do. The government is not entitled to make decisions when it comes to someones body! You state, "It may seem wrong and in violation of rights, but the rights of the living take priority over rights of the dead", and yes this is exactly true ! That is exactly why, citizens make the choice when they're alive ,not when they're dead! If someone makes a decision when their alive, then it shouldn't be ignored when they're dead!
"It's about what someone is entitled, and not entitled to do. The government is not entitled to make decisions when it comes to someones body!"
And just why not? Tell me where in the constitution rights are provided for the dead?
"That is exactly why, citizens make the choice when they're alive ,not when they're dead!"
Im confused how you say my statement is true but you still hold that it should still be a choice. Either you go to heaven or who cease to exist, either way, your body is worthless to you and it should go to those who actually need it.
"If someone makes a decision when their alive, then it shouldn't be ignored when they're dead!"
"And just why not? Tell me where in the constitution rights are provided for the dead? "
The constitution grants rights for the living, and the living make choices for the things that happen to them when they are deceased. For example, when people are alive, they right wills. Otherwise, their money and property would just go to anyone ! And What about religion? Some religions are against organ donation ; So even if someone is dead , should the government come in between their religious beliefs ? NO! They shouldn't. My body may be a worthless corpse when I'm dead, but i DO have the right to decide what happens to it !
"The constitution grants rights for the living, and the living make choices for the things that happen to them when they are deceased"
You are saying rights continue after death. They simply don't.
" For example, when people are alive, they right wills. Otherwise, their money and property would just go to anyone ! "
Money is a different matter. You can't put a dollar bill into someone to save their life.
" And What about religion? Some religions are against organ donation "
REligion is lie made to control one's way of thinking. On top of that. the respecting of a religious establishment(which can be defined as a system of order) is illegal.
"So even if someone is dead , should the government come in between their religious beliefs ? NO! "
Hell yes.
" My body may be a worthless corpse when I'm dead, but i DO have the right to decide what happens to it !
"You are saying rights continue after death. They simply don't. "
If someone makes the choice of what happens to there body when they are living , yes their decions shouldn't be ignored when thy're dead. "rights after death " Call it what you want !
"Money is a different matter. You can't put a dollar bill into someone to save their life." - Same concept ! When , you're alive you make choices for the things that happen to you when you're dead
"REligion is lie made to control one's way of thinking. On top of that. " That's your opinion! Not everyone believes that.
"On top of that. the respecting of a religious establishment(which can be defined as a system of order) is illegal." - umm sources ??? Respecting a religious establishment is an illegal? No its not.
"No you don't" If i don't, then who does? huh? Not the Government !!!!
"yes their decions shouldn't be ignored when thy're dead. "
Under the given situation yes they should.
" Same concept ! When , you're alive you make choices for the things that happen to you when you're dead"
Dividing gained estate is not the same concept of organ donation. Money will go on and one whether one spends it or not. Organs decay unless used.
"Not everyone believes that"
Their beliefs are useless and weak against the formation of the law.
"- umm sources ??? Respecting a religious establishment is an illegal?"
Have you not read the constitution? I'll give you a hint it's near the beginning. Religious sediments cannot be upheld by the government without being in violation of the law.
"If i don't, then who does? huh? Not the Government"
Yes the government for the progression of an effective medical system.
Also try separating your quotations from your rebutles.
I've deicided i'm done debating with you because my points aren't getting through you're head. Have a nice day! Oh, and you seem a little up tight, i would sugest living a little ! :)
As the late George Carlin put it, rest his soul, 'I refuse to be an organ donor because when I'm about to die, I WANT PEOPLE TO SAVE MY LIFE! Not look down on me and go, "Oh, he's a donor? Eh, don't bother."'
Frankly, forcing people is wrong, and what's more wrong is all doctors looking at patients in critical conditions as organ farms. I love the idea of organ donation, but it being mandatory is going a little far.
Such a thing is illogical, to force another to forfeit their organ and or organs for the good of another is morally appealing though not ethically correct. By doing this it is possible to save the lives of some...however it is also a likely way to lose two lives if a complication should occur. As well technology is being improved to effectively grow organs from essentially nothing, while this will obviously take time it is worth waiting and not forcing people to become organ donors against their will.
donation is voluntary process, and nobody can press other person to give several organ. the decision to be donor or not is totally depends on us and it is totally our rights to decline it. people who want it, they do, but what if there are people who don't want to be donor or have special reasons that can't allow them to this? for example medical reasons. people who had hepatitis are not able to be donors.
