Originally Posted by Yogurt

Gods, what the hell did this thread turn into? Can't we ever have a non-runaway discussion on this site?

I stopped reading at about page 3 because the replies were getting too long, but to Lauren, Rayine, Amardeep, and the others who keep pushing the "what's your reason for not donating?", "religion is not a reason" arguments, what the hell is your problem?

I too personally believe everyone should attempt to donate their organs, and while I personally dislike that people would not donate because of religion, you don't just go around essentially interrogating people like that. You guys sound like children nagging their parents until they give in out of exhaustion and exasperation.

People don't need a reason to not donate. And they certainly don't need to justify it to any of you guys. They aren't obliged to, and they're not automatically a bad person if they don't. Immoral – maybe, maybe not – that's a matter of personal opinion.. And if they choose not to because of religion, then so be it! Telling them that their reason is invalid over and over again wouldn't change anything. Even if you don't agree with them (as I do), at least have some respect.

I'm sure we can all do a ****ton more to help others that are lesser off, and I'm sure there are many avenues to do so that won't take much effort from us, but we don't. Humans are instinctually selfish in certain regards (I don't mean that in a negative way).

Live and let live.
_

EDIT: And educate. But don't drive people away.

EDIT 2: Lastly, if it's okay to ask...

For those of you who can't donate because of religion reasons, I'm curious as to what religions actually do forbid organ donation. It might be best to reply to me (please) via PM, as I don't want to fuel the ongoing disrespect and agitation.

First, reasons for donating/not donating was the original point of the thread. If someone doesn't want to give a reason, why would they bother posting in the first place? Of course they're not obliged to tell what their reasons are, but as that is the whole point of the thread, why wouldn't that be part of the discussion? I would argue however that people do need to justify their reasons for not donating, as it affects more than just yourself, you are essentially accountable for someone else's death if you can prevent it and choose not to. (Note: I see the counter argument perfectly well and this is not something I wish to push, nor is it necessarily my view...but the argument does exist). If you think otherwise, then fine, but that is your opinion and not fact.

Also I notice you edited out the part about it not doing anyone any harm.

As for religion...I said I'd rather discuss that over PM to avoid derailing the thread. Again, if you would like to know what my "problem" is, PM me.

A huge problem with Macinsiders, and this thread, is that people seem content to attack others off of assumptions about their beliefs, to the point where I need to explicitly write out disclaimers. It's ridiculous. That's how a discussion becomes a series of attacks. People take what is written and act like it's been yelled at them with a finger wagging in their face. It's the internet, there is no body language or tone of voice to read. I'm done wasting my time.

OK, think about this situation:

Some random guy, let's call him Jack, is born in a hypothetical society. Jack grows up, and through experience, he learns that doing "good" actions is beneficial for him and his community, whatever good is.
As he gets older, he learns that he can't possibly do everything that is good in the world (due to lack of time, money, etc), so he most make choices to maximize the benefit of his good actions. For example, if he has a coin to give to charity, he can choose to donate it to an animal shelter or to cancer research, so Jack chooses the one that he thinks is more beneficial.
A few years later, he finds out about donating organs, and he thinks it's a good idea because he wants other people to live longer. Later on, he hears in the news that there was a car crush, a drunk driver hit another car, and both of them end up in the hospital. Due to injuries, they both need an organ transplant, for the same organ, but there is only one available. So gets this new idea in his head, a question that won't leave him alone, who will get the organ?
He then realizes that the organization in charge of delivering the organs doesn't have a system to decide who receives the organs. A drug dealer is as likely of receiving an organ as a teacher. A criminal who just got shot has the same chances as a human rights activist; it's all random, and Jack doesn't agree with this. It's actually against his morals, because he doesn't believe in just doing good, he believes in maximizing good.
He wonders "what if I donate my organs, and some murderer gets it, just so he can get out and kill more people?" Then, in his own way of thinking, he would be doing more harm than good. By his own standards, he considers himself a good man because he has never committed any crimes, and he's constantly trying to help people, and he doesn't think it's fair that someone who contributes nothing to society has an equal chance of getting an organ, should he be in need of one. Because of this, he decides to opt-out of the program. He then tells all his friends and relatives to do the same, because he believes that if everyone decides not to donate organs, then that will force the system to change its rules and be more selective. Jack believes that if he achieves this within his lifetime, and he needs an organ, then he'll have a better chance of getting it, therefore increasing his opportunities of doing good actions for his community.

Now, I don't personally know anyone who thinks like Jack, but I'm sure there is people out there who do. Is he immoral? I don't think so. He's just following his own set of values and morals that he accumulated all throughout his life. He just wants the best for his society. Ultimately, the morals that you have depend a lot in your family and the culture you grow up in.

So yeah, that's one of the many possibilities when you consider that everyone has different morals. Throw religion in and that just makes things more complicated.

There is a somewhat of a similar situation when it comes to donating blood. I have a cousin who is probably one of the most healthy people I know. He does exercise all the time, he eats well, rarely gets sick,and never drinks or smokes. Why can't he donate blood? Because he's gay. Because of this, many of his friends refuse to donate blood. They want to force the system to accept blood from gay people. There is actually many people who do this, look it up.

Are they wrong for doing this? That's not for me to decide, everyone has different morals and values.

Originally Posted by Eternal Fire

First you said:



Later on you said:



You need to make up your mind.



You can't make up your own scenarios to explain what you think "rational" means. The meaning of the word is independent of whatever situation you can think of.



Right on.

I made it quite clear many times that besides actual medical reasons where your organs are useless for donation, there is no rational reason. I may not have religiously stated that each and everytime, my mistake.

umm, no definitions of words can change as long as you've set out what the definition is. And I did not make any declaration for what the definition was. A rational decision is one that is reasoned and allows one to derive a conclusion consistantley (says wikipedia). Religion is not a rational reason (I would argue that in the face of zero evidence, there is little else people would believe other than religious views). Same thing with a medical reason, you wouldn't donate an organ that doesn't actually work very well with the intent of providing it to someone in order to work.

Originally Posted by doppelganger

Slightly off topic but it is quite interesting: Some of the highest organ donation rates in the world are in Europe. Many European countries have a presumed consent program. So you have to opt out of donating rather than opt in like in Canada.

Could it be that people are just too lazy to change whatever the default is? Or maybe it is just a lack of information?

I was totally going to suggest that, but thought it was off topic. And I think that is a big reason, either people don't know enough about it or they put it off just like they put off a lot of other things. I might be wrong, but I suspect that's probably the biggest reason... people don't think about organ donation very often right? In that case, I think an opt-out style makes a lot more sense... if you have strong religious convictions against it, you'd be welcome to opt out, but it would prevent unawareness from being a factor.

it would be better if everyone was to have their organs donated no matter what but they would have to opt out of it. lol

Originally Posted by Yogurt

Gods, what the hell did this thread turn into? Can't we ever have a non-runaway discussion on this site?

I stopped reading at about page 3 because the replies were getting too long, but to Lauren, Rayine, Amardeep, and the others who keep pushing the "what's your reason for not donating?", "religion is not a reason" arguments, what the hell is your problem?

I too personally believe everyone should attempt to donate their organs, and while I personally dislike that people would not donate because of religion, you don't just go around essentially interrogating people like that. You guys sound like children nagging their parents until they give in out of exhaustion and exasperation.

People don't need a reason to not donate. And they certainly don't need to justify it to any of you guys. They aren't obliged to, and they're not automatically a bad person if they don't. Immoral – maybe, maybe not – that's a matter of personal opinion.. And if they choose not to because of religion, then so be it! Telling them that their reason is invalid over and over again wouldn't change anything. Even if you don't agree with them (as I do), at least have some respect.

I'm sure we can all do a ****ton more to help others that are lesser off, and I'm sure there are many avenues to do so that won't take much effort from us, but we don't. Humans are instinctually selfish in certain regards (I don't mean that in a negative way).

Live and let live.
_

EDIT: And educate. But don't drive people away.

EDIT 2: Lastly, if it's okay to ask...

For those of you who can't donate because of religion reasons, I'm curious as to what religions actually do forbid organ donation. It might be best to reply to me (please) via PM, as I don't want to fuel the ongoing disrespect and agitation.

I stopped reading past "you don't just go around essentially interrogating people like that."... read the original post. The poster asked if you were an organ donor and why or why not... everything people do is for a reason (can be a good reason, bad reason, reason based on logic, emotion etc etc...) but there is always a reason for everything that everyone does. I eat breakfast every morning because I'm hungry/I need energy for the day/I'm going to run a marathon. If you or others didn't wish to be asked why someone wouldn't donate... and btw, the only person i asked why to was Chris because he didn't answer it, religion is an answer to the why question, I never suggested i wasn't, I just said it wasn't a good one but that's besides the point, you can do whatever you want, the original poster just wanted to know if people were donors and why...

Was going to define rational... nah.

Should note (I think someone did) that being an organ donor is not the default state. You choose to be a donor. You choose to do this act of good, and that's admirable. But, not choosing to do an act of good is not an act of evil. Nor does it say the person is irrational.

Originally Posted by Eternal Fire

OK, think about this situation:

Some random guy, let's call him Jack, is born in a hypothetical society. Jack grows up, and through experience, he learns that doing "good" actions is beneficial for him and his community, whatever good is.
As he gets older, he learns that he can't possibly do everything that is good in the world (due to lack of time, money, etc), so he most make choices to maximize the benefit of his good actions. For example, if he has a coin to give to charity, he can choose to donate it to an animal shelter or to cancer research, so Jack chooses the one that he thinks is more beneficial.
A few years later, he finds out about donating organs, and he thinks it's a good idea because he wants other people to live longer. Later on, he hears in the news that there was a car crush, a drunk driver hit another car, and both of them end up in the hospital. Due to injuries, they both need an organ transplant, for the same organ, but there is only one available. So gets this new idea in his head, a question that won't leave him alone, who will get the organ?
He then realizes that the organization in charge of delivering the organs doesn't have a system to decide who receives the organs. A drug dealer is as likely of receiving an organ as a teacher. A criminal who just got shot has the same chances as a human rights activist; it's all random, and Jack doesn't agree with this. It's actually against his morals, because he doesn't believe in just doing good, he believes in maximizing good.
He wonders "what if I donate my organs, and some murderer gets it, just so he can get out and kill more people?" Then, in his own way of thinking, he would be doing more harm than good. By his own standards, he considers himself a good man because he has never committed any crimes, and he's constantly trying to help people, and he doesn't think it's fair that someone who contributes nothing to society has an equal chance of getting an organ, should he be in need of one. Because of this, he decides to opt-out of the program. He then tells all his friends and relatives to do the same, because he believes that if everyone decides not to donate organs, then that will force the system to change its rules and be more selective. Jack believes that if he achieves this within his lifetime, and he needs an organ, then he'll have a better chance of getting it, therefore increasing his opportunities of doing good actions for his community.

Now, I don't personally know anyone who thinks like Jack, but I'm sure there is people out there who do. Is he immoral? I don't think so. He's just following his own set of values and morals that he accumulated all throughout his life. He just wants the best for his society. Ultimately, the morals that you have depend a lot in your family and the culture you grow up in.

So yeah, that's one of the many possibilities when you consider that everyone has different morals. Throw religion in and that just makes things more complicated.

There is a somewhat of a similar situation when it comes to donating blood. I have a cousin who is probably one of the most healthy people I know. He does exercise all the time, he eats well, rarely gets sick,and never drinks or smokes. Why can't he donate blood? Because he's gay. Because of this, many of his friends refuse to donate blood. They want to force the system to accept blood from gay people. There is actually many people who do this, look it up.

Are they wrong for doing this? That's not for me to decide, everyone has different morals and values.

That's a really good argument that I've never thought of. But I don't know if not donating at all is the best policy for the good of society.

Let's pretend that for every organ donated there is a 75% chance of it going to a "good" person and 25% chance of a "bad" person (I don't think that's unreasonable as I don't think 25% of our population is in prision, and for the ones who get out, if they could be let out of jail should they not be treated like every other citizen in terms of rights). I think you can see where I'm going with this, if you decide to donate you have a 75% chance of giving it to a good person and 25% chance of a bad one, where as a 0% and 100% chance of giving it to a good and bad person respecitivley if you don't donate. Lets pretend this is a game of points, everytime a good person gets an organ they get plus one, everytime a bad person gets one it's negative one. In situation A (donate organ), the recipient population would have an overall point of 0.75. In situation B (don't donate organ) the recipient population would have an overal point of 0. So wouldn't maximizing the good of society in this situation be to donate your organs?

But if you live in Gotham city, maybe the tables would be turned... but still you present an interesting argument!

I have a very selfish reason not to donate that I have yet to notice in this thread (if someone has said it my apologies). I'm a selfish prick, but hey, I'm an honest selfish prick so tough nuts.

The following has been expressed on snopes.com in an elegant way. It seems they are attempting to debunk this "myth" (as unbiased as possible) but do, in my opinion, an inadequate job (as I will explain below), though it's a very well written article. It can be found here: http://www.snopes.com/medical/emergent/donor.asp

Doctors have been accused of 'allowing donors to die prematurely' to collect organs for other patients who need them. In a large majority of the accused cases, doctors have been acquited of all such charges (snopes), though mind you I believe that sleezy (expensive, successful doctor-affordable) lawyers are capable of working magic, even for the guilty. But moot point, let's assume everyone acquited was indeed innocent.

All it takes is a single doctor who, by their own ethical standards believes that the organs would do greater good in a new body, to do this with a clean conscience. Remember I'm not claiming such doctors are corrupt, or doing it for selfish gains...but it does happen, I mean even statistically speaking, to claim that that this has never happened, and I mean ever, is absurd.

----------

Why snopes.com does an insufficient job (in my opinion) is that, as soon as there is one single case of such malpractice (and there is...in fact much more than one), that could have been avoided if the patient had not been a donor, then I am taking the risk of shortening my own life by being a donor. Even if by a few minutes. My organs are part of my own body, I would willingly give them if I had complete and utter certainty that this would not happen, but frankly I don't have that confidence.

All arguments aside regarding how probable this is, and how the likelyhood of someone benefitting from my organs is much greater (this is an ethical question that still plagues me, and some day I may change my mind), my current mindset is that my organs are mine and are in me to live my life. (Remember, I said I was a selfish prick) My brief moments of life are far more precious to me than a stranger's 10 years.

Another typical argument is reductio ad absurdum: Claiming that, "well, if there's some small chance that taking a plane will result in premature death, why risk that?" But this is an entirely different matter because there is a completely different outcome. By never taking a plane I effectively cut off my chances to experience many things in life. I am willing to take this risk because the benefit of taking it is a tangible thing that I can have. By donating organs, I'm increasing the chances of someone else experiencing things in life at the cost of my own chances.

There are a few people I love enough to cut my own life short to protect theirs. Such people I would gladly donate my organs to...but anyone who is a stranger to me, tough. I have my reasons.

EDIT: I want to point out (to my defense) that I legitimately believe this is a serious concern. It's not entirely selfish (and I don't mean to literally say that my brief moments of life are more important to me than someone else's, I was using that as a means of emphasizing my point), and as I said, if someday I see how things work and my fears are quelled (and I believe this is a ridiculously unlikely scenario) then I may reconsider the issue. But again, as of right now, I worry about the possibility of this happening.