Journal pudge's Journal: Letter Sent to State Legislators: Organ Donations 14
I am an organ donor. Can we have a law that allows me to choose for my organs to NOT go to a prison inmate? They are my organs, after all.
If I can't disallow my taxes going to pay for the $500,000-surgery (and who decided this was, in the words of the Dept. of Corrections, "basic medical care"?), perhaps at least I can disallow my organs from going to them.
Referring to this.
Now Playing: PhilosophyGuy - Podsafe Comedy Countdown #31 - Talk Funny to Me.
Probably not. (Score:2)
Besides, if your wishes pre-death start to actually matter, how would all the probate courts and attorneys be able to take their share of your pie?
Re: (Score:2)
Given that once you're dead, the legal system doesn't care one bit about what you want, it's highly unlikely this is going to suddenly change just because you don't want some pothead getting your liver.
The extent to which that is true is beside the point here: this is a state donor program, and so the state can change the program, by passing a law, to allow people to specify "no inmates." And if it did that, and I chose it, it absolutely would be legally binding, because it would be specifically against the law to give my organs (under the state's program) to an inmate.
Slippery Slope (Score:1)
This guy did a crime, is doing his time, and will be released. That is the process of the American legal system. This guy got on the list, waited two years, and got his transplant. Going to prison should not be a death sentence. Besides, organ donation with no caveats is a good Christian thing to do..
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer my organs not got to a convict, nigger, spick, kyke, honkey, ayrab, chink, wop, mick.
You seem to be implying that what you are talking about logically follows from what I am talking about, and that's not true. Inmates are significantly different from anyone else that you mentioned, in that we already take away their rights.
A better example might be saying that, "what's next, taking away an inmate's right to speech, to vote, to keep and bear arms?" Oh wait, we already do that! And those are Constitutional rights, whereas access to organs is not.
There is no slippery slope here, but you ar
Re: (Score:1)
> I do not believe you could possibly support that using scripture.
There's probably nothing specifically referencing organ donation, but Luke 6:27-36 [biblegateway.com] has some applicability here I think. Basically, it says even sinners do unto others with caveats, so what differentiates the Christian who only does the same.
Re: (Score:2)
There's probably nothing specifically referencing organ donation, but Luke 6:27-36 [biblegateway.com] has some applicability here I think. Basically, it says even sinners do unto others with caveats, so what differentiates the Christian who only does the same.
But that misses two points that make all the difference.
The first is that this is a way to subvert another process, that of the state sponsoring organ donations. If they did that for everyone, that would be one thing, but they are doing it only for inmates.
The second is that there is a HUGE waiting list for organs, and the LAST people they should go to are people who are criminals.
I am not wishing harm on the inmates. I am wishing that they do not get significant benefits at the significant expense of ot
Re: (Score:1)
On your first point, the intent is to oppose special privilege for one class of people. I.e. transplant surgery, for free if you're incarcerated. I don't think that that (opposing) position conflicts with Christianity.
On your second point, however, the intent is to support special privilege for one class of people. I.e. organs going to non-inmates before inmates. Because inmates are less "worthy"/the evil are less worthy of kindness and mercy. My take on the passages I referred to is that thi
Re: (Score:2)
On your second point, however, the intent is to support special privilege for one class of people. I.e. organs going to non-inmates before inmates.
No. It is not special privilege for them. It is excluding the others.
All organ donor lists give out organs based on some sort of qualification process. If you are a drug abuser, you are not on the list. This does not create a special privilege for non-drug-abusers. It is saying that giving it a drug abuser is a poor use of this very valuable resource.
And I am saying prison inmates is a similarly poor use, and that it should be a disqualification. That does not give others a special privilege.
Because inmates are less "worthy"/the evil are less worthy of kindness and mercy. My take on the passages I referred to is that this violates the spirit of them. "For He is kind to the unthankful and evil." The version in Matthew [biblegateway.com] has: "for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." Continuing back in Luke: "36 Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful." The letter writer you quoted certainly is expressing an un-Christian-like attitude (and probably does not profess to be one), in wishing to exclude them completely.
You app
Re: (Score:1)
You're speaking gobbledygook. You can say that giving a group of people dibs to something advantageous, over another group, is only discriminating against one group and somehow not simultaneously privileging another group, but it doesn't make any sense.
All organ donor lists give out organs based on some sort of qualification process.
The fallacy of "we've always done it this way, or similarly"? I wasn't saying that criteria aren't used, or
Re: (Score:2)
You're speaking gobbledygook. You can say that giving a group of people dibs to something advantageous, over another group, is only discriminating against one group and somehow not simultaneously privileging another group, but it doesn't make any sense.
Uh. Actually, it does. A privilege is something extra you give to someone. No privilege is being granted.
All organ donor lists give out organs based on some sort of qualification process.
The fallacy of "we've always done it this way, or similarly"?
It is only a fallacy if how you've always done it isn't right. In this case, it is not a fallacy. It would be extremely wasteful to give an organ to someone, for example, with a low life expectancy.
When we go around declaring people "unproductive", therefore "unworthy" of scarce or expensive medical treatments.
That is not what is actually happening. It is not treatment that is being denied, it is organs. My view on the treatment itself is clear: you get it if you can pay for it, and not if you can't. The
Mandatory (Score:1)
Nice Pro Life Position (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And by "nice," I mean that continual misrepresentations of my position will get you Foe'd.
get a will (Score:2)