3 ms·
A life saved is not sufficient to counter a murder.
by fsloth 7y ago
A life saved is not sufficient to counter a murder.
- sam_lowry_ 7y agoSome countries implement an opt-out system. If you do not want your body to be reused after you die, you have to declare it in advance. This is hugely beneficial for patients. Now, even this hugely emotional article does not talk about murder.
- Nextgrid 7y agoIt’s one thing to harvest organs if the patient dies of accidents/natural causes, and personally I am in favour of the opt-out system. It’s a whole other thing of killing the patient on purpose to harvest their organs.
- sam_lowry_ 7y agoAt least several thousand people are executed in China annually. Can their bodies be used?
- Nextgrid 7y agoWouldn’t it be worth investigating why they are executed? Given this organ trade is going on I wouldn’t be surprised if their “justice” system is being literally trigger-happy because they benefit from the resulting organs being made available.
- fsloth 7y agoExecuted in a systen where law is not supposed to be impartial but only a tool among many to upkeep the states power. I don't think humans where worth much after death before modern organ transplantation. State arbiter gets more reasons to less leniency when there is a profit to be had from the execution. In an already 'unfair' system adding profit motive to executions can only worsen the humanitarian result.
- Noumenon72 7y agoI agree, even if it's five lives saved per murder there's probably a better way. (Voluntary suicides come to mind.) In my view the article did not make the case that "people are being killed _for_ their organs," but "people are being killed _and_ they're taking their organs." The first policy is unambiguously bad while the second is efficient in some ways and dangerous in others.