Quote:
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
As for my parts when I'm dead, please burn me. No, don't take anything. It's not that I don't feel sorry for those who need them -- nor will I have any use for them. However, medicine's simply gotten too good, and we still reproduce like bunnies, so I shall harden my heart against individual beneficiaries so that I can avoid contributing to the larger problem of overpopulation. Believe me, I'd rather be an organ donor, but there are simply too many of us, and I can't justify it to myself.
|
Interesting position. What is it about organ donation that is different from taking medicine, for instance, or receiving other sorts of therapy, or having surgery? I'm interested to know what the parameters of your position are. For instance, I notice that you specified hardening your heart against 'individual beneficiaries' which to me suggests that a solution which targets a lot of people is good but one that will help only a few is not? (I'm not sure if that's what you meant at all
). What about stem cell research then? If we get to a stage where organs can be created and repaired en masse, would that fit with your position?
One thing I'll note is that some people who require organs don't actually die, at least not for quite a long time. For instance, many people who need kidneys can live for many years on dialysis, which is pretty expensive. Getting a transplant would probably be more cost-effective over the long run, and wouldn't in this case contribute to overpopulation because they wouldn't have died anyway.
I'll just note also that my questions aren't meant in any way to be an attack on your position or otherwise hostile - I'm just curious for it to be elaborated a bit. I agree with the notion that the enthusiasm in some scientific circles to prolong life as much as possible is misplaced, but I wouldn't have singled out organ donation as a major facet in the movement.