Ping!
Simply abandon the ban on compensating donors and their heirs, and the problem would vanish.
Liberal/progressives better not support this sort of "bio-ethics". They could be slaughtered by the millions.
because the right to life is a God-given natural right.
They’ll just have the murders relabeled as “post-birth abortions.”
Now where have I heard that phrase “moving forward” before? And why does it mean going backwards in civilization?
I’ve always argued that the left does not view life as intrinsically limited, but as a resource of the state.
I’ve come to believe that braised U.S. bioethicists are quite tasty if served in Bernaise sauce with a nice Côtes du Rhône.
After all, killing people is fine if its for a good cause.
You see, they’ve persuaded me.
It truly is chilling to see what some people will advocate under the premise of “the common good.”
first we abandoned morality and now even simple ethics are obstacles to the insane radical left
The novelist Walker Percy saw all this coming 20 years ago. From his comments on his last novel, “The Thanatos Syndrome”:
“I tried to show how, while truth should prevail, it is a disaster when only one kind of truth prevails at the expense of another. If only one kind of truth prevails — the abstract and technical truth of science — then nothing stands in the way of a demeaning of and a destruction of human life for what appear to be reasonable short-term goals.”
Geez . . . I wonder to what this is leading us . . .
Gee, what an old-fashioned, out-of-date, un-post-modern concept.
How about we do away with the norm that patients should pay doctors for their services? Or that the medical profession is somehow respectable? Or that men and women who save human lives are in any way worth more to a society than the men and women who clean our toilets?
Yes, let's discard all those old, worn-out ethics and replace them with a new hierarchy of enlightened, humanist, utilitarian values! After all, what does God know?
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong a Duke University bioethicist and Franklin G. Miller, an ethicist with the National Institutes of Health - start with them.
A good execution method. Put the criminal under, remove all useful parts, drain the blood for transfusions, discard ramainder. Much better than poisoning or cooking recyclable body parts.
(With just minimal editing, this could be utterly hilarious, while horrifying those who proposed it. Edits in ALL CAPS.)
The conundrum faced by the organ transplant industry, that the removal of vital organs kills the “donor,” can be “easily obviated by abandoning the norm against killing BLACK PEOPLE,” two leading U.S. bioethicists have said.
In an article titled, “What Makes Killing BLACK PEOPLE Wrong?” appearing in last month’s Journal of Medical Ethics, the authors have moved the argument forward by admitting that the practice of vital organ donation ignores “traditional” medical ethics.
“Traditional medical ethics embraces the norm that doctors ... must not kill PEOPLE JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK. This norm is often seen as absolute and universal. In contrast, we have argued that killing BLACK PEOPLE by itself is not morally wrong, although it is still morally wrong to cause total disability, MAKING BLACK PEOPLE PERMANENT WELFARE RECIPIENTS.”
The problem with killing BLACK PEOPLE is “not that the act causes loss of life or consciousness but rather that the act causes loss of all THEIR ABILITY TO PLAY SPORTS.”
But the article’s authors admit that the situation is already grave from the point of view of traditional medical ethics. The so-called “BLACK donor rule,” they say, is already “routinely violated” in transplant practice anyway.
In order to be consistent with “traditional medical ethics” the practice of organ transplants FROM DRUNK OR DRUGGED BLACK PEOPLE, already a multi-billion dollar international medical industry, would have to be stopped immediately.
But stopping THE TAKING OF ORGANS FROM BLACK PEOPLE on the mere grounds that it kills BLACK people, they said, would be “extremely harmful and unreasonable from an ethical point of view.”
I think... we did not win WWII. We did not win the Cold War. At best it was a delaying action. Apparently Mankind has a “kill switch” designed so that if we got too big for our britches, we would self-destruct. It’s like a swirling storm of pure devilishness out there now and there seems to be no way for the moral majority to put these people back on their heels.