The_root_of_all_evil said:
...
Wow...now they don't even have a choice?
No, if you're mentally unable to make and cummunicate decisions on your own, then the current legal order assign you a legal guardian to make those choices for you (usually a parent or close relative)
Simple. Your mother can be saved by a replacement organ from a donator. My non-donator gets shafted simply by need (which still may fail)
I was referring to the right of the person who donated the organs to have them used as (s)he intended. Surely this person have as much right that his organs be used in accordance with his choice as the one who chose they should remain in his corpse has?
Though the addition of providing a greater chance for other persons should of course be factored into the equation as well.
Not answered whether she is more important yet.
It should be clear from my stance that I consider the living more important than the dead.
And these are still may's, which imply may not's.
Still, a shot at life is better than death. It's an inherently positive factor.
Being a Virgin Mother of Eight. I assume you picked that label for a reason.
I don't think being a mother is a medical condition.
Of course, virgins are seldom mothers, but seldom are they pregnant either, so there's no indication of pregnancy present.
But that's no need to condemn non-donators for manslaughter, is it?
Nope, but it's a reason to remedy the situation. That something isn't exactly unethical - but merely ethically neutral - hardly preclude that you can establish a system serving another, ethical purpose.
No. I have decided that it's a choice for the individual to make.
As have I. I've simply slightly altered the course it must take to make that choice a reality, in order to better utilize those individuals who are utterly indifferent as to how their corpses are potentially utilized, enough so to never care to choose anything but passivity in the matter.
Again, calling non-donators equivalent to manslaughter is an unfair and unjust accusation.
...and when did I do that?
How can you regret when dead?
You can't, but you can in your final moments, as can your surviving family. And that regret might just as well be that you're not a donor as it could be that you are.
Apart from you've just possibly killed someone...as you've already stated.
No, you simply didn't take the
most ethical path available, which isn't the same as your action being in any way
unethical.
So giving the family/individual choice is a good thing?
Most certainly.
As is shaping the conditions so that the result of indifference on the subject will be beneficial to others.
Or giving the opportunity to make a decision in the first place.
Which already exists.
Not if there ain't any organs to choose from it doesn't. As is too often the case.
Ok, a fourth coma patient has just died. He opted out before going into the coma. He has a heart that could save this woman, and no legal guardian.
What exactly would your legal backlash be if a Doctor took his heart and used it to save your mother's life? Would there be one?
Because if there isn't, what weight does the entire opt-out system hold?
The same as it would be now if he'd used someone who hadn't opted in. If you've opted out, then your position is the exact same as those who haven't opted in these days.
