View unanswered posts | View active topics
It is currently Fri Aug 08, 2025 8:05 am
Time to halt council chiefs’ gravy train
Author |
Message |
jonbwfc
What's a life?
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm Posts: 17040
|
If you mean brain dead I'd say they're already well on their way.
|
Wed Jun 09, 2010 1:49 pm |
|
 |
adidan
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:43 pm Posts: 5048
|
Jon's quite right. You're no longer a person when you are dead, all that's left is an empty carcass that no longer produces the neuro-electrical impulses that would idintify it as being a 'person'.
_________________ Fogmeister I ventured into Solitude but didn't really do much. jonbwfc I was behind her in a queue today - but I wouldn't describe it as 'bushy'.
|
Wed Jun 09, 2010 2:03 pm |
|
 |
lumbthelesser
Occasionally has a life
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 11:38 pm Posts: 442 Location: Manchester
|
I suppose the dead person does have some rights, as far as a will reaches. But then the government does reserve a right to take a percentage if the estate is valued high enough. Given the high value of human organs, it would not be unreasonable to reserve a right to those too, especially as the value is considerably lower to anyone else. Yes it is more harsh than an opt-out system, which does at least provide people with a choice.
_________________ According to a recent poll, over 70% of Americans don't believe Trump's hair was born in the USA.
|
Wed Jun 09, 2010 2:08 pm |
|
 |
jonlumb
Spends far too much time on here
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:44 pm Posts: 4141 Location: Exeter
|
Except you are insisting on rights over your children. Still fits your description up there. You'll apply a principle to your suiting in one circumstance, but not in another. How convenient. This is the thing, life is not black and white. Principles that apply in one area don't neccessarily apply in another.
_________________ "The woman is a riddle inside a mystery wrapped in an enigma I've had sex with."
|
Wed Jun 09, 2010 2:09 pm |
|
 |
hifidelity2
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 1:03 pm Posts: 5041 Location: London
|
As this has moved slightly from the origonal “Council Gravey train” I will throw in my 2 penny worth
The lack of avaliable organs is a scandle BUT taking them from someone without consent (either theirs or their families) is also wrong.
Personally I think it should be an opt out system. Until a certain age (16 maybe) your parents (Guardians) have the right to opt you out. After that you have the right to opt out.
With organ donation a percentage are strongly in favour (and so carry donor cards). A larger percentage are in favour but cant be bothered to do anything about it. A small minority are against.
With an opt out system the small percentage activly against dobnation would opt out (carry a non-donor card?) while the rest would accept it. We must rememebr that in lots of things apathy rules. I don’t see why we cant use this apathy to increase the pool of donors rather than to keep it small
|
Wed Jun 09, 2010 3:36 pm |
|
 |
rustybucket
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:10 pm Posts: 5836
|

 |  |  |  | jonlumb wrote: There is a fundamental fallacy with your argument. What we are dealing with is no longer a person, it is a corpse. That is a massive distinction, and central to the whole ISSUE. "The Human" (and in turn any concept of Human Rights) ceases to exist at point of death, it's simply a large slab of meat, nothing more.
There is also a substantial difference between this and say ID cards. With ID Cards, we are talking about a system of control being implemented, largely for the sake of control, on the offchance that it assists in a possible event. What I suggest is a system, that if it has to be implemented, is on a case by case basis (unlike ID cards), and as a direct consequence saves a human life. |  |  |  |  |
There is also a flaw with your argument I'm afraid. Your argument seems to be based on the premise that the intended recipient has a right to a new organ - no such right exists. A cadaver may be an empty vessel to some, including myself, but the previous resident of said body was worthy of respect - a respect that doesn't end just because they are dead. Whilst it does seem sad to me that a relative could refuse to allow my organs to be used, I can understand it. That is why I have registered as an organ donor. I have a friend who gave birth some years ago at Alder Hey. The baby was taken away to be "looked at" a few moments after birth and was lost. By the time the baby was found in a storage cupboard, it had died of hypothermia. The family had the requisite funeral and the family managed to weather the storm. Some years later, as you may recall, there was a scandal over the stripping of organs from babies for research purposes. My friend then found out that her dead son had had most of his organs removed post-mortem. The family had to fight a legal battle to get all of his remains and had to have yet another funeral with yet another very small box. The toll on the family and close friends has been catastrophic. Now I agree that it is far, far better that the living be kept alive and that, for me at least, it makes sense that those parts of me that can be reused are. However the issue simply isn't as black-and-white as has been made to look. Part of having dignity in life is having dignity in death; how we die is often our last wish and is not a wish that others or the state should trample over. Some people may choose to be selfish at the last and however much I disagree with their choice, it is not my place to disregard it. We should also remember that human-deceased organ transplants have only been happening since the 1930s. These things take a while to change but I'm quite sure that if left well alone without legislation where none is needed, society will eventually come to see this as a normal and acceptable.
_________________Jim
|
Wed Jun 09, 2010 4:56 pm |
|
 |
Linux_User
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:29 pm Posts: 7173
|
Well in the case of children, they're incapable of making rational decisions on their own, and thus parents must make the decision for them - that's an established principle in English law. I disagree with the fact that "corpses" are not people - they are human beings, and as such their bodies deserve to be treated with respect.
|
Wed Jun 09, 2010 8:26 pm |
|
 |
belchingmatt
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 3:16 am Posts: 6146 Location: Middle Earth
|

 |  |  |  | Quote: My grandmother's cousin was named Juan. He was to marry a lovely young woman named Natalia. But, three weeks before the wedding, Juan's great aunt died. He went to the burial, greatly saddened because of his aunt's death, but also very giddy because of his impending marriage. He fell behind his family as they were walking out of the cemetery. He noticed a skull at the side of an old grave. Juan kicked it and told it, "Hey, why don't you come to my wedding?" and ran away happily.
Three weeks later, Juan married Natalia in a beautiful ceremony. As he was entering the church, however, Juan noticed a figure, completely dressed in black (including a veil) sitting in the last pew. He didn't give it much thought. At the reception, he noticed the same figure, now sitting at the last table. He asked his sister Marina to offer the figure refreshments. Marina did, and reported that the figure was a woman and that she didn't want anything. When the sun began to set, the figure got up and approached Juan. She told him that since he had invited her, that he had to take her home. Juan got scared, went up to the priest and told him about the mysterious figure. The priest advised him to take a baby with him, and to give the woman a ride home. The priest also told Juan that he was to keep the baby with him at all time, no matter what the woman said. Juan then picked up Marina's baby daughter, and headed towards the veiled woman. "It is time for me to take you home," he said. The lady glanced at the baby that he was carrying and shook her head. "You cannot bring this child with you," she declared. Juan shrugged, "The baby is very attached to me, and wont stay with anyone else. The woman shook her head, but said, "That is fine."
Juan lead the lady to his car, and began to drive. The lady began to give him explicit directions to her domicile. She ordered him to stop at the cemetery. She got out of the car, and motioned Juan to follow her. He did, still carrying the baby. The woman turned to Juan and told him, "You really don't remember me, do you?" Juan shook his head. The woman lead him to a grave. "A while ago, you came to this place and disturbed my peace,' the woman said. "I was going to take you into my grave with me, so you could suffer the punishment, but I cannot, for you have an innocent with you. You must learn to respect the dead," she continued. And with that, she stepped on the grave and removed her veil. Her face was a bare skull. Juan screamed and ran out of the cemetery and into his car. When he got back to the car, he drove quickly, and within a few days, he and his wife left the ranch for good. |  |  |  |  |
_________________ Dive like a fish, drink like a fish!
><(((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º> •.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>
If one is diving so close to the limits that +/- 1% will make a difference then the error has already been made.
|
Wed Jun 09, 2010 8:32 pm |
|
 |
jonlumb
Spends far too much time on here
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:44 pm Posts: 4141 Location: Exeter
|
Hmm, an emotive piece of fiction. I must confess I'd have expected better from you Matt.
This thread does highlight something that I've thought for a long time:
I've never been a fan of the concept of rights, for the simple reason that this obsession we have with rights means the focus orientates towards "me and what I'm entitled to". It's an old fashioned concept, but I much prefer the idea of 'duty', ie 'what I can do for the benefit of other people / what are my responsibilities'. This thread has if anything been the perfect justification to me of this point. Linux et al have spent their entire time talking about 'their rights' etc. and in turn arguing a point of view that means more people die.
_________________ "The woman is a riddle inside a mystery wrapped in an enigma I've had sex with."
|
Wed Jun 09, 2010 9:15 pm |
|
 |
Linux_User
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:29 pm Posts: 7173
|
LOL I'm a huge believer in rights, particularly when it comes to exercising rights over things I was born with! Those organs belong to me, no-one else.
|
Wed Jun 09, 2010 9:21 pm |
|
 |
moonshine
|

Maybe for all those that think it is ok to take whatever you need from a body, then they might then relinquish their rights to their organs when they are still alive ? C'mon young man, surely you don't need both those kidneys, and lets be serious, you can still see with one eye ! Planning a family sir ? You do know kids are a financial drain, fancy relinquishing those testicles ? That might look like a attempt at humour but its rather more serious. Human rights are eroded one chip at a time. You can spot the people who don't notice their rights being eroded away, as they believe all the spurious arguments, for these schemes, without considering or understanding the negatives and real reasons. A more intelligent donor system for people to become a member of would be of more use, that way a detailed record of health screening could be kept. Also, organs already get used for research without consent as many parts are removed in autopsies and not replaced. As this link highlights, its a logistical and admin nightmare already. Good take on it here : http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/new ... onorpolicy
|
Wed Jun 09, 2010 11:48 pm |
|
 |
Amnesia10
Legend
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am Posts: 29240 Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
|
In Austria your dead body can be harvested without any problems because of an old law that they have. Though an opt out might be better than an opt in. Too many people hate the idea that they will ever die and so never make any preparation for it like making a will etc.
_________________Do concentrate, 007... "You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds." https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTkhttp://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21
|
Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:12 am |
|
 |
jonlumb
Spends far too much time on here
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:44 pm Posts: 4141 Location: Exeter
|

Ok, I'll bite. The argument you present is piss poor in a number of ways. Firstly, you're trying to transfer an argument about dead bodies over to living humans. Massive logical / ethical jump there. Secondly, any forced donation a living person could make (eye, kidney, testicle etc.) are all ones that don't have to be done in an emergency. No being able to see / procreate (and wow about parent's rights if it's a testicle transplant  ) won't kill you. If you need a new kidney, we have this marvellous technology called dialysis that'll keep people alive indefinitely. What I have been arguing about here is emergency organ transplant where it's going pretty much straight from one body to another (via any treatment required) under conditions where the other person would die if it didn't happen, so things like heart and liver (I think that's pretty serious) failure. Everything else can wait (health / technologically speaking) until consent has been found, but if it's a matter that if the transplant doesn't happen there and then the second person dies, then do the transplant. Don't get me wrong, I'm aware it's taking "one hell of a liberty", and should be subject to appropriate checks and balances (probably at the level of a Magistrate or similar) and every effort should always be made. If, as in Oli's case, I could genuinely help someone out in that regard then I would, no questions asked. It's here in writing and you can hold me to it. As Linux_User demonstrated so well, we base our lives around principles, but then we realise that in certain instances, for justifiable reasons, we need to add exceptions to those principles. I firmly believe that this is one of those instances. I should also add that I am aware that under our current legal system, this would not be a legal process, I'm arguing from a moral imperative, not trying to reinterpret the law.
_________________ "The woman is a riddle inside a mystery wrapped in an enigma I've had sex with."
|
Thu Jun 10, 2010 6:34 am |
|
 |
jonlumb
Spends far too much time on here
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:44 pm Posts: 4141 Location: Exeter
|

Thanks for posting that. I've always wrestled slightly with my previous statement. It's never easy to hold a belief that seems to run so strongly against popular culture on a subject, often meaning I would question myself on the subject. But you've provided the perfect illustration of why my thought process was right. You're more concerned with your rights over your own corpse than someone else's ability to go on living. If that's the kind of thinking that Rights lead to then I want nothing of it. I'll go back to my nostalgic concept of duty and assuming people want the best for their fellow man. I nearly fell into the trap of thinking "if anyone has a genuine desire when given a no-cost choice over helping someone or not, and chooses not to, that their choice is wrong and should be taken away from them." It strikes me as being a very Vulcan way of looking at the world, and you'd be quite correct in pointing out how fascist it would be. Thankfully I realised that point before presenting a poor argument on a subject. I'm aware that this is a slightly odd thing to write here, but I do want to stress that I do consider and reconsider ideas in light of new information, I don't just blindly follow a dogmatic path. If someone had put forward a genuinely convincing argument then I'd gladly have taken it, but I've yet to see anyone argue that a concept is more important than a tangible human life. I suspect the chasm between us on this one is so wide that not even Evel Knievel would consider trying to cross it. I think I'll probably also withdraw from this thread now, as from here I don't see us doing anything further than rehashing old arguments. At least (unlike I suspect most arguments) I've been able to put my mind at rest on some issues which had up until now caused a certain internal conflict, and for that I am grateful.
_________________ "The woman is a riddle inside a mystery wrapped in an enigma I've had sex with."
Last edited by jonlumb on Thu Jun 10, 2010 6:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
|
Thu Jun 10, 2010 6:42 am |
|
 |
belchingmatt
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 3:16 am Posts: 6146 Location: Middle Earth
|
Just some useless tat I found. I wonder how many fewer donations would be required if people treated their bodies better, you know the preventable problems with the liver, heart, lungs and kidneys generally caused by overindulgence or abuse?
_________________ Dive like a fish, drink like a fish!
><(((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º> •.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>
If one is diving so close to the limits that +/- 1% will make a difference then the error has already been made.
|
Thu Jun 10, 2010 6:45 am |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
|