Posted on 05/11/2010 8:30:18 PM PDT by antiobamacare
It was only a matter of time before someone would construct a serious formal argument for solving the growing organ shortage by euthanasing brain-dead or unconscious. It has finally happened. The only surprise is that it has been made by an Oxford don who is the editor of the leading journal, Bioethics.
Professor Julian Savulescu and his associate Dominic Wilkinson, in an early on-line article, “Should we allow organ donation euthanasia? Alternatives for maximizing the number and quality of organs for transplantation”, contend that their proposal could supply as many as 2,200 more organs each year in the UK.
Savulescu and Wilkinson’s idea runs like this. It is indecent that 450 people die in Britain while waiting for an organ. People who are on life support or who are brain-dead are potentially a good source of organs, as each body can yield as many as nine of them. Organs taken from living patients are most suitable for transplant, because every second after the heart stops beating decreases the chances of transplant success. Patients would, of course, have to assent to the procedure before they became unconscious. And they envisage taking organs only from patients who would die soon anyway.
Adopting their proposal would be a revolution in medical ethics, they acknowledge, as doctors have always been forbidden to kill patients. And they also realise that the public would be unlikely to embrace the idea. “But if we can save even one life, that is something of great moral importance,” they write. “Many lives could be saved even if only a small percentage of people opted for [organ donation euthanasia].”
Their principal concern is to solve the organ shortage, but this idea also provides a strong argument for euthanasia: “although most arguments for euthanasia are distinguished from questions of organ donation...
(Excerpt) Read more at thewoodwardreport.com ...
Elderly need to begin comparing actuarial data to infectious disease timetables. Then they can deliberately get infected and finish out their days as unsuitable donors. Sure, they’d be denied treatment under socialist care, but at least the organ donation people wouldn’t be showing up to croak them. Did the boys of Monty Python ever conceive how close to reality that bit would be?
“Well, I’ll miss some of my liberal friends, but it is for The Greater Good after all...”
LOL!
Simply a case of the West following the lead of the East, in this case, China; they’ve been doing this for some years already. Except the donors are not really donors, if you catch my drift.
No doubt, this will also be the case in the West. “Oh, you’re a Republican, how quaint. Now, I’ll just put you under so we can remove that troublesome tooth......”
Honestly, I’d solve the organ shortage by:
1. allowing people to sell their own; and
2. only allowing organs to be donated to adults who have volunteered to be donors themselves.
There are lots of ethical dilemmas generated by allowing the sale of organs, including:
None of these dilemmas are anywhere near as difficult to solve as harvesting organs from living people.
Liberals can start with themselves.
If these people are so stuck on the idea of getting rid of people; maybe they should be first in line. Just to show their commitment.
“Right to Die = Duty to Die”
Wasn’t that a Star Trek episode? Old and/or new?
Hell, why not just skip to the chase and proclaim that you and your body are not sovereign, and that the state, through Eminent Genomic Domain, may compel anyone, at any time, to forfeit vital and non vital organs.
Just say it and be done with it...
Example: Any straight guy who recommends abolishing DADT in the military gets to spend 5 years in a San Francisco bathhouse, inspecting each anus for damages. The gay boys spend 5 years as bathroom attendants in a woman's prison...
“...by euthanasing brain-dead or unconscious.”
snip
“Should we allow organ donation euthanasia? Alternatives for maximizing the number and quality of organs for transplantation”
Is it just me?....How does a brain-dead or unconscious person “donate”?
so, Larry was right all along.
what could be next, the A R M?
Julian Savulescu
Dominic.Wilkinson
Adopting their proposal would be a revolution in medical ethics, they acknowledge, as doctors have always been forbidden to kill patients.
But doctors now work for the state, not for their patients, so let's not hear any of that obsolete "primum non nocere" twaddle.
If you are referring to Larry Niven, I think next comes capital punishment for jaywalking.
I was thinking the same thing. From an efficiency standpoint (and we're all for efficiency, aren't we?), the donation and the euthanasia could be one and the same procedure.
No, actually The Meaning of Life is not my absolute favorite movie.
That is a brilliant idea
been awhile since i read one of that series, thanks
No kidding. Where are the ethics? They don't exist.
I was wrong to say "everyone." There were a lot of us who saw this coming from a longs way's off.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.