4 ms·
The argument is fundamentally the same. The benefit outweighs the cost by a large margin. There are social and psychological reasons for not donating organs aft
by ghastmaster 6y ago
The argument is fundamentally the same. The benefit outweighs the cost by a large margin. There are social and psychological reasons for not donating organs after death that apply to blood donation as well.
- ceejayoz 6y agoGiving blood is low risk, but not risk free. Organ donation at death is entirely risk free to the donor. They have literally nothing to lose from it.
- ghastmaster 6y agoSetting aside the few religious exceptions, that is correct. This gets to the root of the issue. Whether the body is property of the family or of the state. I argue for the former. In the USA there has to be compensation for property taken by the state. There also has to be a public good argument in most jurisdictions as far as I know. Because the beneficiary of the organ is not the general public, but an individual, I do not see how this could work without massive revisions to state and federal law.
- ceejayoz 6y agoAs far as I can tell, dead bodies aren't property in the US. They can't be stolen (although other laws would likely apply), they aren't part of the deceased's estate, etc. http://thelegalgeeks.com/2014/11/13/stealing-corpses-and-obstruction-of-justice/ http://thelegalgeeks.com/2014/11/13/stealing-corpses-and-obs...
- bborud 6y agoAaaand suddenly the discussion took the un-charming turn where suddenly deceased human beings are possibly property.
- aklapa 6y agoThis is just propaganda, in the recent thread there have been numerous examples that this is not always the case. This is why it is unethical to make it opt-out, but in line with the current mixture of ultra-left materialism and ultra-capitalism.