BS: Organ transplants - a moral dilemma

Subject: BS: Organ transplants - a moral dilemma
From: Arnie
Date: 15 Apr 10 - 05:26 AM

In the UK today, a judge has expressed his surprise that a multiple rapist in court once again, is on the organ transplant list waiting for a new heart. Not sure how the judge learned of this, unless the defence revealed it hoping for a lesser sentence. Anyway, how bad can his heart be considering that he has already raped 3 women and is now being sentenced for a 4th rape. Perhaps giving him a new lease of life will mean that he may continue raping women once released from the present sentence. Would a donor be content to know that his heart could be gifted to a serial rapist? The Organ Transplant agency is remaining non-comittal on this matter and the NHS says that all cases are treated on their clinical need only. I carry a donor card but personally, I would not give this rapist the steam off my p**s. I think this news may make quite a few existing and potential donors consider their options.

Subject: RE: BS: Organ transplants - a moral dilemma
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Apr 10 - 06:10 AM

Obviously not taking his blood pressure medicine!

Subject: RE: BS: Organ transplants - a moral dilemma
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 15 Apr 10 - 07:54 AM

Arnie-

Slippery slope. What if the person needing the transplant was a member of a political party you disapprove of? What if they were left handed, and you had had a teacher you hated who was left handed? What if they were a member of ( insert your own) minority?

IF you use other than clinical need, you open it to political, racial, and religious bias. Will you let someone else decide who is "Good" enough to get the transplant,or are we supposed to let you decide for everyone?


That said, I do understand your point. Perhaps a blanket "No transplant for anyone convicted of a felony" would work...

Worth a discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Organ transplants - a moral dilemma
From: Jack Campin
Date: 15 Apr 10 - 08:20 AM

I have a note on my donor card saying nobody who carries any sort of private medical insurance gets any part of me. Compared with people who want to destroy the NHS, serial rapists are fluffy bunnies.

Subject: RE: BS: Organ transplants - a moral dilemma
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Apr 10 - 11:42 AM

Minor snag withthe "felony rule" - over here in the UK the distinction between felonies and misdemeanours was abolished before I even began to study law!

Subject: RE: BS: Organ transplants - a moral dilemma
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 15 Apr 10 - 11:49 AM

BearededBruce makes a very fair and valid point. One hard to combat rationally, in that the system for transplantation has to be fair for it to work properly, with no discriminations.

I carry a donor card too and am on the database. I would hope, by the law of averages, that any of my body bits would go to really nice, well deserved, law abiding citizens. Would I be concerned to learn they had gone to some rapist/child molester, ect ect. Yes I would, especially when there are so many good and deserving causes out there, and I am glad I do not have to make such decisions.

The whole nightmare irony could be he killed someone while raping them and then got their organs. What a massive dilemma this subject raises. The other thing is that my organs could save the life of someone who goes on to become a serial killer or mass murderer. I have no way of knowing and can only live in hope that would not happen. I guess if we sign that card then we also sign our rights to its use away too.

One has to trust what seems to be the fairest system to make such decisions in the end. So, while I totally agree with BeardedBruce on one hand, I totally empathise with the OP's point too. More splinters in my bottom! All these fences I sit on this well are getting to me ;-)

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Organ transplants - a moral dilemma
From: open mike
Date: 15 Apr 10 - 12:24 PM

sounds like he needs a new brain....instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Organ transplants - a moral dilemma
From: GUEST,oggie
Date: 15 Apr 10 - 05:16 PM

To me it will be irrelevant who gets the non-cancerous parts of me. My family won't be told who gets them. I trust the transplant people to sort out the clinical need issues. I am not prepared to go into moral issues as that becomes a slippery slope, should the number of kids be taken into account, their annual wage, their sexuality? Where do you draw the line?

I don't, the offer is there for others to do as they see fit.

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Organ transplants - a moral dilemma
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 15 Apr 10 - 09:32 PM

Back when the US health care bill was being hotly debated, and the Republicans were doing everything they could think of to stall, one Republican proposed an amendment to make it illegal to prescribe Viagra for a convicted rapist.

Of course they did this so that they could then denounce the Democrats who voted against the amendment.

But think about the implications of this possible law: Would I, if I wanted Viagra, then have to get a letter from my local chief of police certifying that I am not a convicted rapist? Or would the pharmacist have to get an online hookup to the FBI database, so he could check the criminal record of everyone who brought in a prescription? (And anyone else he felt like checking on?)

I don't even want to talk about whether depriving a rapist of Viagra would be an effective way to prevent rape. In my mind, it's immaterial.

I say let the doctors, nurses, pharmacists, hospitals, etc. do whatever their own consciences and code of ethics require (or allow) them to do, and let the government stay the hell out of it.

Our health care providers are mostly pretty good people. They're not all perfect, but on the whole, I trust them more than I trust politicians.

Subject: RE: BS: Organ transplants - a moral dilemma
From: Janie
Date: 15 Apr 10 - 11:16 PM

The issue is not a moral dilemma for me, because I choose to regard all sentient beings as having equal intrinsic worth or value.

Subject: RE: BS: Organ transplants - a moral dilemma
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Apr 10 - 12:18 AM

Very enlightened of you no doubt, Janie.

So, say ~~ Hitler having moral worth or value equal to that of Albert Schweitzer?

Away you!

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Organ transplants - a moral dilemma
From: Janie
Date: 16 Apr 10 - 07:46 AM

Just as do you, Michael, I regard Hitler's behaviors in the world as reprehensible. I have worked out my values and beliefs regarding sentience with care and thoughtfulness and find that choosing to attribute inherent, intrinsic value to sentience, and to consider actions and behaviors as separate from the fact of sentience to work well for me in the context of my life, work, and circumstances.    Many, many people in the world hold similar views. Many, many other people in the world, (and I assume, based on your comment, that you are one those others) have also thought carefully about these issues and chosen to believe that sentience is not an attribute separate from cognitions, behaviors and/or actions. I do not consider one position more enlightened that the other.