|
On March 26 2012 02:26 Rimstalker wrote: Of course I will donate.
And carry your organ donor card! My sister had one, had a bike-crash that mashed her brain, did not have her card OR id along, so the doctors could not get hold of family to ask for it and they were not allowed to take anything.
wow how can you be so casual and cool about your sister getting her brain mashed, man. you tell it like its the most normal thing in the world.
having sad that, im so sorry to hear.
|
As much as it seems irrational, I'm against donation because the idea of me becoming less than whole, even in death, doesn't sit right with me. Couldn't really begin to explain why that is, but it's the gut feeling that I have towards it.
|
On March 26 2012 10:15 divito wrote: As much as it seems irrational, I'm against donation because the idea of me becoming less than whole, even in death, doesn't sit right with me. Couldn't really begin to explain why that is, but it's the gut feeling that I have towards it. Ive also thought of this. Its also interesting that you are not arguing it on the religious perspective. I suspect also that this might be a strong reason why religious people hesitate, because what if the judgment day comes and the dead are brought back. what happens to those with incomplete body parts, or those cremated? Anyway this seems far-fetched. I also dont know exactly about judgment day so Im basing it on popular notion.
|
On March 26 2012 10:15 divito wrote: As much as it seems irrational, I'm against donation because the idea of me becoming less than whole, even in death, doesn't sit right with me. Couldn't really begin to explain why that is, but it's the gut feeling that I have towards it.
But it's your corpse that becomes less whole. So why should that matter? Whatever this sense of "you" is that you're aware of, it's not going to be any less whole without, say, a kidney, after you die, and "you" no longer exists. "You" are just the result of the highly complex and plastic patterns of neuronal signaling and other interactions at the brain. This activity at the brain is enabled by the body, so you should think of it this way instead:
After you die, your body no longer serves a purpose. So it should be used in the best way possible, which is to take it apart and make use of the viable parts, so that others may live. Personally, I think "you" dissipates as you die. As your neural processes cease, so do "you". You are your cognition; conscious, subconscious, and unconscious, all included. So when this ends, you end. I don't object to religion though -- maybe some abstract, non-physical version of "you" exists. Whatever. But still, this abstract thing isn't affected by the body being disassembled. I dunno man, you shouldn't feel attached to your body after you die, and I don't mean that in a literal way
|
Yes I will donate if I die, better put them to use than otherwise decay, No I won't donate them while I am living, hands off my shit, I am still using them, wait for your damn turn.
|
On March 26 2012 10:25 Abort Retry Fail wrote: Ive also thought of this. Its also interesting that you are not arguing it on the religious perspective. I suspect also that this might be a strong reason why religious people hesitate, because what if the judgment day comes and the dead are brought back. what happens to those with incomplete body parts, or those cremated? Anyway this seems far-fetched. I also dont know exactly about judgment day so Im basing it on popular notion. I don't see why it's interesting that I'm not arguing the religious perspective. Religion, in my opinion, is the result of a lesser mind. I'm not religious in the least.
On March 26 2012 10:27 FallDownMarigold wrote: But it's your corpse that becomes less whole. So why should that matter? Whatever this sense of "you" is that you're aware of, it's not going to be any less whole without, say, a kidney, after you die, and "you" no longer exists. "You" are just the result of the highly complex and plastic patterns of neuronal signaling and other interactions at the brain. This activity at the brain is enabled by the body, so you should think of it this way instead:
After you die, your body no longer serves a purpose. So it should be used in the best way possible, which is to take it apart and make use of the viable parts, so that others may live. Personally, I think "you" dissipates as you die. As your neural processes cease, so do "you". You are your cognition; conscious, subconscious, and unconscious, all included. So when this ends, you end. I don't object to religion though -- maybe some abstract, non-physical version of "you" exists. Whatever. But still, this abstract thing isn't affected by the body being disassembled. I dunno man, you shouldn't feel attached to your body after you die, and I don't mean that in a literal way I don't disagree scientifically, or semantically for that matter, it's just my mind's natural reaction to the proposition. As I said, it's an irrational feeling. And perhaps, something that is connected to it, is that I'm afraid of dying. The thought of me, and my consciousness no longer existing is terrifying. Again, irrational. I understand all the alternatives and such, that's just the feeling I have.
|
On March 26 2012 10:45 divito wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 10:25 Abort Retry Fail wrote: Ive also thought of this. Its also interesting that you are not arguing it on the religious perspective. I suspect also that this might be a strong reason why religious people hesitate, because what if the judgment day comes and the dead are brought back. what happens to those with incomplete body parts, or those cremated? Anyway this seems far-fetched. I also dont know exactly about judgment day so Im basing it on popular notion. I don't see why it's interesting that I'm not arguing the religious perspective. Religion, in my opinion, is the result of a lesser mind. I'm not religious in the least.
You described an irrational belief. Religious beliefs are irrational. He was intrigued that although your position is irrational, it's not supported by a religious argument. I also find it interesting. Usually people who hold irrational beliefs such as "I don't want to donate organs" do so with religious justification, or maybe they actually manage to provide a rational justification anyway (can't name any examples, but maybe some exist)
|
On March 26 2012 10:48 FallDownMarigold wrote: You described an irrational belief. Religious beliefs are irrational. He was intrigued that although your position is irrational, it's not supported by a religious argument. I also find it interesting. Usually people who hold irrational beliefs such as "I don't want to donate organs" do so with religious justification, or maybe they actually manage to provide a rational justification anyway (can't name any examples, but maybe some exist) I can understand that connection. It's quite odd and I suppose, interesting.
I'm a very logical, philosophical, and science-oriented person; I find it silly that I would hold such an irrational thought because I'm anything but irrational in every other aspect of my life. I understand and agree with the aspects and arguments surrounding it (organ donation, and life/death), but it's just a gut reaction. Perhaps it's some biological imperative towards self-preservation manifesting itself in that feeling and idea.
|
On March 26 2012 10:45 divito wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 10:25 Abort Retry Fail wrote: Ive also thought of this. Its also interesting that you are not arguing it on the religious perspective. I suspect also that this might be a strong reason why religious people hesitate, because what if the judgment day comes and the dead are brought back. what happens to those with incomplete body parts, or those cremated? Anyway this seems far-fetched. I also dont know exactly about judgment day so Im basing it on popular notion. I don't see why it's interesting that I'm not arguing the religious perspective. Religion, in my opinion, is the result of a lesser mind. I'm not religious in the least.
Yes. Because your justification that you "will not be complete" is not religious. I would assume this is often the argument of people with religious stance, saying that they need to be whole for the resurrection or because the body is holy so it must not be "violated". Since this is not your argument, why do you need a "whole" body as a corpse then?
|
On March 26 2012 10:54 divito wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 10:48 FallDownMarigold wrote: You described an irrational belief. Religious beliefs are irrational. He was intrigued that although your position is irrational, it's not supported by a religious argument. I also find it interesting. Usually people who hold irrational beliefs such as "I don't want to donate organs" do so with religious justification, or maybe they actually manage to provide a rational justification anyway (can't name any examples, but maybe some exist) I can understand that connection. It's quite odd and I suppose, interesting. I'm a very logical, philosophical, and science-oriented person; I find it silly that I would hold such an irrational thought because I'm anything but irrational in every other aspect of my life. I understand and agree with the aspects and arguments surrounding it (organ donation, and life/death), but it's just a gut reaction. Perhaps it's some biological imperative towards self-preservation manifesting itself in that feeling and idea.
Well that's totally cool and fine, so let's just put it like this:
Is it really fair to limit the overall chance that others in need of organs may live based off a loose, gut-reaction? We could at least agree that if you decide to opt out of organ donation, you are abnegating any potential opportunity to save a life by organ donation. It seems like choosing to opt out of organ donation, in your case, would be serving your gut-reaction rather than what you know about organ donation and the dramatic effects it has on saving lives. Is that fair, overall?
|
On March 26 2012 10:56 Abort Retry Fail wrote: Yes. Because your justification that you "will not be complete" is not religious. I would assume this is often the argument of people with religious stance, saying that they need to be whole for the resurrection or because the body is holy so it must not be "violated". Since this is not your argument, why do you need a "whole" body as a corpse then? If I had to speculate on why I have this feeling (pure speculation), I would say that because I know that a body exists with these components and organs, and having them removed alters what the body is/was. It no longer is a whole body. It's not a matter of a corpse "needing" those parts, it's just a matter of now I know that it is, or will be, missing something, or is "incomplete."
On March 26 2012 10:48 FallDownMarigold wrote: Well that's totally cool and fine, so let's just put it like this:
Is it really fair to limit the overall chance that others in need of organs may live based off a loose, gut-reaction? We could at least agree that if you decide to opt out of organ donation, you are abnegating any potential opportunity to save a life by organ donation. It seems like choosing to opt out of organ donation, in your case, would be serving your gut-reaction rather than what you know about organ donation and the dramatic effects it has on saving lives. Is that fair, overall? This discussion would open a whole can of worms if I think about all the implications. Even if I were to ignore the inherent fallacy associated with that argument, I'd have to agree that all aspects of the medical profession can and should happen; I'm not sure that I do.
|
yes when I'm dead i want people to do every good thing they can think of with my body. Parts of my body will help people in need instead of just rotting away.
|
People who don't wanna donate shouldn't receive organs from others. Organ transplant is a life or death situation, not to be deterred by selfishness.
|
I have a question, is it possible to have a bone donation, let's say you need to replace a bone could you get it from a dead donor?
|
On March 26 2012 11:04 divito wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 10:48 FallDownMarigold wrote: Well that's totally cool and fine, so let's just put it like this:
Is it really fair to limit the overall chance that others in need of organs may live based off a loose, gut-reaction? We could at least agree that if you decide to opt out of organ donation, you are abnegating any potential opportunity to save a life by organ donation. It seems like choosing to opt out of organ donation, in your case, would be serving your gut-reaction rather than what you know about organ donation and the dramatic effects it has on saving lives. Is that fair, overall? This discussion would open a whole can of worms if I think about all the implications. Even if I were to ignore the inherent fallacy associated with that argument, I'd have to agree that all aspects of the medical profession can and should happen; I'm not sure that I do.
What is the inherent fallacy? By not being an organ donor, you are limiting the amount of organ donors that exist by 1 person -- you. With you as an organ donor, the total organ donor pool increases by 1. More organ donors = more potential organs. More organs = more potential saved lives. The general conclusion I intended to communicate was becoming an organ donor actively helps to save lives, while actively not being an organ donor denies your potential to save lives.
Where am I making a significant mistake? In any case, the point was not to create a perfect argument in accordance with formal logic rules and such - I don't even know anything about that stuff. Finally, you can't praise yourself as a highly logical person, or whatever you were doing a few posts back, when you opt out of organ donation based on a completely irrational belief. Your description to the other guy of organ donation not being right due to leaving the body "not whole" is, in fact, a really good example of illogical thinking. You totally disregard the objective good entailed by organ donation -- saving lives -- in favor of a totally irrelevant observation that it leaves the body "not whole". Irrational.
|
On March 26 2012 11:15 Nevermind86 wrote: I have a question, is it possible to have a bone donation, let's say you need to replace a bone could you get it from a dead donor?
umm?
|
On March 26 2012 11:19 FallDownMarigold wrote: What is the inherent fallacy? Appeal to emotion.
On March 26 2012 11:19 FallDownMarigold wrote: You totally disregard the objective good entailed by organ donation -- saving lives -- in favor of a totally irrelevant observation that it leaves the body "not whole". Irrational. Objective good? Good is a subjective classification. Something cannot be objectively good. The only true statement that could be made is that organ donation has the potential to extend/"save" lives. The goal is to extend/save lives, and not all donations and transplants go well, so it saving lives is not absolute. And that's not an argument against the donation, as you might take it, I'm just clarifying.
And as such, I'm not saying that I will never consider, or won't ever get a donor card; I was merely highlighting what it means and feels to me as a proposition. I don't deny that my useless body could end up helping someone through a donation of an organ or certain tissue. I again, would have to agree that we should look to extend everyone's lives just for the sake of a fallacy.
There are some proponents that would contend that extending lives with the use of procedures and medication is artificially disrupting natural selection, increasing/maintaining the world population, promoting poor genes that would otherwise be gone, and causing us more harm than good by wasting resources that would otherwise help future generations. Not a complete personal view by me, I'm just playing devil's advocate.
|
On March 26 2012 11:15 Nevermind86 wrote: I have a question, is it possible to have a bone donation, let's say you need to replace a bone could you get it from a dead donor?
No, because everyone's bones are shaped rather differently and because hard tissue is very much so different from hard tissue. Bone isn't a dead piece of calcium, it is very much a living process that is unfortunately very much so tied into immune systems, circulatory systems and a host of other balances. A part of the natural bone upkeep are cells called osteocytes (which act in a way very similar to nervous cells) and other derivatives of osteoprogenitors that would probably experience fairly severe immune responses if merely transplanted into someone else. As it is, to transplant even just bone marrow (which is actually fairly common for disorders of the marrow like certain cancers) usually requires the "nuking" of the host immune system just to have a hope of it taking.
Most bones grow back on their own, even if only partially anyway. For those that don't or those that cant wait (like cranium etc) often a graft from your hip or something can be put in to help along the process of healing. If you are talking about a whole leg bone, you probably have the whole limb gone if your bone is missing or shattered to the extreme length that a whole new bone is necessary.
|
My estate better get paid for my organs. No donations. I'm not going to let hospitals profit off of my goods. They are up for sale though,
|
I see no reasonable issue with organ donation, but forced extraction can bring up some issues. Taking the organs of people on death row sounds reasonable but straight up killing people for their organs feels like rape to me. You're taking advantage of their body and completely disregarding them as human beings with things like feelings.
|
|
|
|