Should Organ Transplants...

[Dave]

Only go to people who are registered organ donors?

I ask this because it is a question that has been playing on my mind for the better part of a year. In the last year, I have read more and more about people receiving organs that will save their lives. I have also read about the long waits people endure and have endured to save their lives. I see that waiting times for live saving operations has increased on average again and I can see why. People are killing themselves with a multitude of drugs and alcohol that is doing a shit-tonne of damage to their organs. Years down the line, after years of abuse, these people will likely need to replace an organ. They are put onto the organ transplant list and they wait for a new lease on life.

Of course, stringent regulations are put in place to ensure that those who are getting the new organ are going to treat it well. Once all of the criteria is met, they can then be put forward for a new organ. My question is, should being a registered organ donor be a criteria that should be met?

I think about it more and more and cannot help but think that it damn well should be. It may seem like a simple theory but I think that you should only get organs if you, yourself are willing to give your own away after you die. Of course, there is many arguments against this and I can see them coming a mile away. It is as close to murder as you are ever likely to get without being in a court room. You are taking away a person's right to live. However, it could be argues that the person who receives an organ and doesn't donate is doing the exact same.

Then you have the argument that people who are born with defects will not be allowed to donate organs, will never be allowed to receive one. I know that this is not an argument that should be taken lightly and this is the argument that I get stuck on every time. They have done nothing wrong in their lives that mean that they should be allowed to be given an organ ut there body will likely ravage the new organ anyway.

Personally, I think that everyone has a moral obligation to donate organs. I am an organ donor and I find it detestable that people do not wish to give their organs away in death. It will not affect you so why not do it? Personally, I see it as an "eye for an eye" situation.

But what do you think?

 

[SalvIsWin]

My question is, should being a registered organ donor be a criteria that should be met?

To answer your question in short, no, I don't think that should be required. Firstly I would like to say I agree that people should give up their organs after death, they can still be useful to others after you have passed, and there is no logical reason to keep them. On the other hand, I can understand other peoples hesitation. One thing that must be understood is that organ donation is relatively new and a lot of people are uncomfortable with the idea of their body being 'gutted' or 'pillaged', as I've heard others say. So while I agree with you on this issue, I don't agree that it's detestable or that these people are reprehensible.

Enacting a regulation or law such as what you're proposing would serve to accomplish one motive: Motivate others to become organ donor after they have passed. The reason why I don't think this should be done is because I think there are far more effective ways to accomplish that. There has never been a powerful campaign or push to educate others about donating organs afaik, and I think that's the bigger issue and problem. People who want to donate their organs are usually altruistic and compassionate, for example I don't really care one way or another who gets my organs after I die, as long as they are put to the best possible use.

While I admire the motive behind your suggestion, I think there are far better avenues to pursue in terms of realizing it, and thus I don't think this would be a good idea.

 

[FromTheSouth]

First of all, doctors are bound by oath to help whomever they can, so no, they can't deny someone a transplant because that patient may not be a donor. Secondly, I smoke, I drink too much, etc. No one could use anything beyond my corneas anyway. Should I be denied a transplant because I can't donate? (Maybe I should because of my unhealthy lifestyle, but I'm working on that.) What about people who have been afflicted with disease? Should they be denied because disease ravaged their bodies?

I don't think this would work. Now, do I think donors should jump to the front of the line? Absolutely. But, it is not right to deny anyone a transplant that could save their lives for any reason.

 

[Tim]

I agree in part to what you're saying. I think what FTS said is right, people who are organ donors should take priority over those who don't. But to say no to donating an organ to someone is basically killing them. People who have made bad choices in their life should be allowed to have a new lease on life, as long as they are sincere about changing their ways and they will not start destroying their new organs. Everyone is entitled to a second chance, so everyone should be allowed to have an organ transplant.

Doctors are there to do one thing, to save people's lives. If they refuse to give someone an organ transplant, they are effectively killing them; doing the exact opposite of what they are supposed to be doing. I know that after I die, I wouldn't mind giving away my organs, but others would see it differently. They would see it as defouling your body after you die, but honestly what are you going to use the organs for? THey should be used to give people a second chance.