Originally Posted by MichaelScarn

Well I think someone mentioned below that there are religious reasons for people not wanting to donate their organs and I think that's completely legitimate and fair.

And just to play Devil's Advocate here, in terms of having a "rational reason", you're asking someone to put aside their emotions, their attachment to their own body and to look at this from a wholly objective perspective. I myself am an organ donor and it's great that a lot of people in this thread are, but there are some people who are not yet ready to make that kind of commitment. Does that make them a bad person? Definitely not. Sure, the argument can be made that they could sign their donor card now and if they realise that they aren't comfortable with it in the future, they can change their decision. But why not let them make the decisions for themselves, instead of coercing them and guilting them into doing so? In my opinion, your argument is a little too black and white and a little prejudiced.

I said a rational reason, relgion is not a rational reason.

And Im not trying to guilt anyone in donating their organs, if someone chooses not to that's perfectly fine. But I have not heard a rational reason not to donate your organs. "It creeps me out" is a frequent one, or "I don't want my body seperated"... you're dead, rationally there is no reason why it should creep you out or you should fear seperation of your body parts.

That being said, people don't think rationally 100% of the time... that's just a reality. Me included, but I try my best to admit it when I don't. People act on more than rational thought, unfortunatley that's just the nature of things isn't it.

Originally Posted by nerual

I don't believe a religion is a good reason.

For some people it is the ultimate reason. We as a society protect religious beliefs because of the incredible importance that religion plays in some people's lives. When your viewpoint is that adhering to your religious customs is the most important thing you can do in this life, and that everything else is meaningless, then all other lines of thinking are invalidated.
Just because you place ultimate importance on this life/human experience, doesn't mean that others are not allowed to place importance on their beliefs/afterlife.

but one of the reasons is that why would your god(s)/religious figure of choice not be okay with you saving someone's life, if it is within your power to do so and won't even harm you in any way?

Again, I think you are only viewing religious beliefs through solely your own perspective and ethical reasoning. Many religious beliefs hold God or Gods as a moral authority and would see it as sacrilege to suppose that our own morals would supplant that authority.

I think what is important is not too let concerns over lack of organ donors justify religious intolerance.

Originally Posted by Amardeep_S

I said a rational reason, relgion is not a rational reason.

Lol that's an extremely ignorant statement and quite a narrow-minded perspective.

Originally Posted by MichaelScarn

I'm not particularly religious so I doubt I'm the best person to have this debate with, but again, there aren't just two sides to this argument. There are a plethora of factors that probably need to be considered before a religious individual is ready to make such a decision. In any case, as you said, this is getting off topic so let's just leave it at that.

But to your second point, based on Amardeep's response, I felt what he said was a little pejorative. I mean, he said that he couldn't think of any rational reason for people not to donate, implying that people who do not donate based their decisions irrationally. Also, the last thing he said, "You have no use for your organs once you are dead, why not help someone who can actually use it?" puts non-organ donors in a negative light. It kind of characterizes them as selfish and I felt the implication that those who do not donate should feel guilty for not helping others.

Full quote also had me state that I hadn't heard a rational reason (outside of what I admitted are perfectly rational reasons such as your organs are of no use to others due to verified medical reasons). Therefore if you choose not to donate without a reason as to why your organs cannot be donated (or perhaps you wish to donate to science etc.) there is no rational reason not to. People obviously won't for reasons xy and z, but they don't have to be rational. I respect someones decision, but I don't have to pretend it's a rational one. Many many decisions people make in their lives are not rational, including mine. But I'm not going to pretend just because I or soceity in general respects a certain decision that it's a rational one.

And I was not characterizing anyone as selfish, you infered that from my comments. I simply said that you have no use for your organs once you're dead (and as far as we know to be scientifically correct). I guess asking why not donate your organs might be precieved as characterizing people who do not as selfish, but that's not what I intended it to be conveyed as.

Originally Posted by spyridm

1) You point out that one shouldn't believe that their organs aren't adequate based on their medical history unless they are explicitly told but you have to remember that a lot of medications affect more than just the targeted tissue of the persons illness, not to mention that people with chronic illnesses will have been on multiple drugs for their whole lives, many of which have side affects affecting many of their organs. People should not be berated for being aware of these side affects and acknowledging that their organs are likely not up to par. You cannot reasonably expect a person's specialist to check each organs to let them know if they are suitable for donation every time they go in for a check up for them to be explicitly told that they are not worthy.
(...and yet again, having been in a Burns & Plastics ward myself and having talked to the physicians, they prefer to use the persons own skin in grafts and will only use cadavers if forced, so please stop using that as a focal point to your discussion as it is misleading)

2) In my opinion you are passing unfair judgement (and yes, I would interpret it as attacking them as well based on your post) on those who have said they won't donate due to medical reasons. It is not something that is completely unwarranted and without a just reason in that persons mind. People are entitled to their opinions and decisions with whatever justification they choose (whether it be right or wrong in your mind).

3) What makes me sad about this thread is also that people seems to lack the understanding that this also is a sensitive topic. Do you think it makes people HAPPY to think that their organs are in shitty quality? Do you think that we would be against organ donation when the very people who are telling you they can't (for medical reasons) are the ones who will likely need an organ donation themselves?
People, have a little respect and remember that just because someone says they can't, doesn't mean that they wouldn't if they had the opportunity.

And of course, you will shoot back saying "but you could donate some of your organs"...I don't really feel that my skin is sufficient for me to donate seeing as I am aware that all of the other organs in my body have and are being affected by my illness and the medications I take to combat it.

I never said a person's specialist has to check them over every time they see them. All it takes is a simple question to your specialist, once. That's it. Not hard. In most cases, at least some of your organs will be salvagable. Also, if they're not suitable for transplant, they could be used for medical research. My point is more that you don't really *know* with 100% certainty, so why shouldn't you *try*. As I said, that question was already answered by sinnersdrown. No need to keep harping on it.

Just because you feel only donating your skin isn't sufficient, that means you shouldn't even try? I don't understand that reasoning--can you explain further?. Also, donating skin is not the "focal point" of my discussion, it's just the least likely to be rendered unsuitable for transplant, and many people forget that skin is a transplantable organ too. That's why I was using it as an example.

Personal story:

I have a chronic medical condition that makes me unable to donate red blood cells or bone marrow, yet I have a good chance of needing a blood transfusion at some point in my life. When I'm watching a family member die and knowing I can't donate blood to them, despite having the same blood type which the rest of the family doesn't have, I know exactly how that feels. (And yes, I have been directly, explicitly told my red blood cells are useless for a transfusion, because I ASKED a medical professional).

Before this happened, I would not have donated blood even if my blood was fine, because I didn't like needles. I still don't, but a needle prick is worth saving someone's life, and I've realized that being scared of needles is a pretty selfish and illogical reason.
Now, I cannot donate red blood cells, but I CAN donate plasma. They can take my blood, separate out the plasma and use that--it's particularly valuable for leukemia patients. This is the equivalent of donating the organs that can be used...I can donate the parts of my blood that can be used.

So yeah, I understand quite well.

Originally Posted by MichaelScarn

Lol that's an extremely ignorant statement and quite a narrow-minded perspective.

Okay, make me an argument why religious views are a rational reason not to donate.

(and I'm not asking whether or not it's a legitamate reason as in one can respect their decision, because I never said that you shouldn't be able to or can decide not to use that as a reason)

Originally Posted by Amardeep_S

But I have not heard a rational reason not to donate your organs.

Often times, many families become distressed about loved ones bodies being used for donation/anatomy labs.

Just an article from a two second pub med search. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18312444

Some people react negatively, some react positively. If my family was going to be distressed that would be a pretty rational reason why someone would not want to donate organs. This isn't such a one-sided argument as you may think. You have to become pretty aware that bodies donated are not always treated as well as you may think. I have seen a fair deal of misuse by MSc/Medical students in labs.

That being said, don't take me as someone who would not want to promote organ donation. I just think this discussion requires more sensitivity to existing concerns about organ donation.

And more generally, anyone who thinks that there is one "rational" response in every scenario needs a good introduction to philosophy.

Originally Posted by Amardeep_S

Okay, make me an argument why religious views are a rational reason not to donate.

(and I'm not asking whether or not it's a legitamate reason as in one can respect their decision, because I never said that you shouldn't be able to or can decide not to use that as a reason)

I think you have a misguided definition of the word "rational". As it was mentioned earlier, many people place their religious beliefs very high on their list of priorities. I don't pretend to be an expert on religion, but undoubtedly some religions don't take lightly to chopping up your body and displaying it everywhere. If a person wholeheartedly believes in the doctrine of their religion, why does that make them irrational? They're not insane; they have full possession of their senses and reason. In my opinion, that makes them rational. Just because you place high priority on your life as it is now and on how you can help society when you die, doesn't mean you should discount those who place high priority on the afterlife.

Originally Posted by Fight0

Often times, many families become distressed about loved ones bodies being used for donation/anatomy labs.

Just an article from a two second pub med search. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18312444

Seems like a pretty rational reason why someone would not want to donate organs. This isn't such a one-sided argument as you may think. You have to become pretty aware that bodies donated are not always treated as well as you may think. I have seen a fair deal of misuse by MSc/Medical students in labs.

Well I haven't read the article so I can't comment on it (will read when I get home).

But how about this for rational thinking. Humans are living organisms. Life is dominated by evolution, and the "purpose" (for lack of a much better word) of evolution is propegation of genes through generations. Each gene wants to live as long as possible... wouldn't donating an organ that carries those genes be the ultimate elongation of their life? Even if we assume that the organ never gets donated again, the genes lived on for just a bit longer. Obviously not something natural selection can act upon, but that's besides the point, the genes still lived on longer and were able to replicate copies of themselves. That's what I mean by a rational argument... not donating for religious reasons in not rational, nor is donating strictly to help others (but donating does not strictly help others, it also helps your genes live on that much longer)...

Originally Posted by MichaelScarn

I think you have a misguided definition of the word "rational". As it was mentioned earlier, many people place their religious beliefs very high on their list of priorities. I don't pretend to be an expert on religion, but undoubtedly some religions don't take lightly to chopping up your body and displaying it everywhere. If a person wholeheartedly believes in the doctrine of their religion, why does that make them irrational? They're not insane; they have full possession of their senses and reason. In my opinion, that makes them rational. Just because you place high priority on your life as it is now and on how you can help society when you die, doesn't mean you should discount those who place high priority on the afterlife.

Read my comment to Fight0... that's what I mean by rational.

Originally Posted by Amardeep_S

Well I haven't read the article so I can't comment on it (will read when I get home).

But how about this for rational thinking. Humans are living organisms. Life is dominated by evolution, and the "purpose" (for lack of a much better word) of evolution is propegation of genes through generations. Each gene wants to live as long as possible... wouldn't donating an organ that carries those genes be the ultimate elongation of their life? Even if we assume that the organ never gets donated again, the genes lived on for just a bit longer. Obviously not something natural selection can act upon, but that's besides the point, the genes still lived on longer and were able to replicate copies of themselves. That's what I mean by a rational argument... not donating for religious reasons in not rational, nor is donating strictly to help others (but donating does not strictly help others, it also helps your genes live on that much longer)...

Well the best way to propagate your genes isn't through organ donation, but getting people pregnant. So are you suggesting that it's rational thinking if a person's sole purpose in life was to get laid?

Originally Posted by Amardeep_S

Well I haven't read the article so I can't comment on it (will read when I get home).

But how about this for rational thinking. Humans are living organisms. Life is dominated by evolution, and the "purpose" (for lack of a much better word) of evolution is propegation of genes through generations. Each gene wants to live as long as possible... wouldn't donating an organ that carries those genes be the ultimate elongation of their life? Even if we assume that the organ never gets donated again, the genes lived on for just a bit longer. Obviously not something natural selection can act upon, but that's besides the point, the genes still lived on longer and were able to replicate copies of themselves. That's what I mean by a rational argument... not donating for religious reasons in not rational, nor is donating strictly to help others (but donating does not strictly help others, it also helps your genes live on that much longer)...

I don't see how this is rational, because I don't understand how it really helps your genes live on. Its not that each gene wants to live as long as possible, the evolutionary part of that says that genes want to make it to the next generation. I don't see how donating your organs in any way helps that, or what the point is of having your genes live longer in an organ like that...why would you care about that?

Originally Posted by nerual

I don't see how this is rational, because I don't understand how it really helps your genes live on. Its not that each gene wants to live as long as possible, the evolutionary part of that says that genes want to make it to the next generation. I don't see how donating your organs in any way helps that, or what the point is of having your genes live longer in an organ like that...why would you care about that?

Well I'd have to go completely off topic to address that... but for good reference read "Selfish Genes", or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-ce...of_evol ution

And specifically do your cells (say in your kidney) not replicate in the recipient? That's a new copy of that gene and thus a propagation of it through a generation.

Does anyone donate or not donate for this reason? No... but as I said, many decisions we make are not strictly rational or irrational. I was simply poiting out that I have not head a rational reason (who knows I might have from that article above, but I'll have to read it first)

Originally Posted by Amardeep_S

Well I haven't read the article so I can't comment on it (will read when I get home).

But how about this for rational thinking. Humans are living organisms. Life is dominated by evolution, and the "purpose" (for lack of a much better word) of evolution is propegation of genes through generations. Each gene wants to live as long as possible... wouldn't donating an organ that carries those genes be the ultimate elongation of their life? Even if we assume that the organ never gets donated again, the genes lived on for just a bit longer. Obviously not something natural selection can act upon, but that's besides the point, the genes still lived on longer and were able to replicate copies of themselves. That's what I mean by a rational argument... not donating for religious reasons in not rational, nor is donating strictly to help others (but donating does not strictly help others, it also helps your genes live on that much longer)...

Like I said, that's only one perspective on rational. A deeper evaluation of what rational means would make you question a lot. A simple first stop could be Descartes.

I am a religious individual, but at the same time understand what current evolutionary theory is. I got my fair share of 12's in evolution based biology courses here at Mac, have read Darwin, The Selfish Gene etc. However I have had religious experiences that to me represent truth far more than other forms of reasoning. That is my "rational", but at the same time I realize that this would not seem logical to some other people as well. The spirit of the debate for me then is tolerance.