John,
I would fully agree that the Church should be in the forefront of encouraging its members to donate their organs after death. After all, isn’t it a central tenet of Catholicism that the body is just a “vessel” and that the “real person” has gone to elsewhere after death? (As I’ve pointed out to fellow somewhat-agnostic friends, the alternative of hanging around for the worms or the flames isn’t a real cheerful thought…)
On the other hand, I’d have to agree with the archbishop that “our organs should be donated as a gift to others and not as a duty,” : I.E., the state should NOT have the right to DEMAND organ donation from those whose religious beliefs are against it.
As a default option however, if nothing is indicated one way or the other, far better for the State to give someone a heart and a life than to give the worms a tasty dessert.
McFadden, Michael J. [MC1973]
# – # – # – # – #
[JR: I think we should have a "free market" in organs. After all the "witch doctors" get paid to transplant them. Bureaucrats get paid to administrate the "organ donation program". What's wrong with getting paid for your spare parts after you no longer need them. Poor people are being defrauded to supply rich folks with those parts. Let them pay for them. Then, there would be no need for "organ waiting lists"! I can see it know a poor minority father gets to put his kid through college when he dies. Yeah, he could have had life insurance, but he was poor. Obviously, we need some controls to ensure an orderly market. But why not? In the alternative, I like Lifesharers; better than UNOS!]
# – # – # – # – # 2012-Jan-15 @ 07:41
John, as you know, I’ve been writing about and battling the “slippery slope” in the area of smoking bans and social engineering (kinda like civil engineering except the nuts have mouths… ;> ) for quite a while, so I tend to look toward “evil futures.”
I don’t want to spoil anyone’s reading pleasure by giving away crucial plot points, but there’s a story in Harlen Ellison’s collection, “Dangerous Visions,” that looks toward a future of mandated organ donation and at least one aspect of it is decidedly “non-purty.” What happens when the State decides that the need for organ donation to save lives justifies “harvesting” the organs from, for instance, condemned child murderers, so that “good and productive” members of society can continue to live and do good works? Sounds like a better idea than paying for those miscreants to live in five-star prison-hotels for the rest of their lives, eh? But think about the incentive for the rich and powerful to lower the bar on just which crimes eventually become deserving of such punishment.
To some extent I see the paid organ donation business in the same light. If I can sell a kidney for $10,000 to feed my starveling children, who draws the line to say I can’t sell a leg or a lung to buy a condo or a few kilos of crack cocaine? Or, as a voter, to overlook the need for child welfare since the lazy parents can always just feed their kids by first being required to donate some blood? Basically, on a gut level, I kind of agree with the organ selling philosophy as you outline the argument. But I’ve learned to be leery of slippery slopes and the “Good Germans” who look at their neighbors and say “Well, it’s really not THAT much of an imposition to take this particular little step.”
Michael J. McFadden
Peace Studies, 1973