Rex… people should opt in. No one has the right to assume agreement.
I’m surprised at the unquestioning acceptance of organ donation. A wise emperor when shown the first aeroplane, had its inventor killed. He foresaw the problems such a machine would bring – as it has. I think he would also have had Dr. Barnard put down, foreseeing the consequences of transplants.
It is infantile to think that just because something is possible, it should be done. Because it was possible to destroy Australia’s flora and fauna, it was – has that been of benefit?
The planet is suffering a plague of humans. We are fouling and destroying the stuff from which we came that supports all life. Do we need more humans? No.
No one commented when I mentioned the thousands of young men and women abducted as sex slaves then cut up for body parts to satisfy the expanding demand of self-indulgent westerners to live beyond their allotted span. The profits of this trade now exceed that of drug trafficking. Have these young people less right to life than those born with defective organs?
Most organ transplants go to older people who have abused their bodies and want a second chance. For such degenerates healthy young Filipinos suffer the agony of having one kidney removed just so they can survive a few more years. Children born with defective organs, even when these are replaced by donated organs, usually suffer a variety of disabilities for the rest of their lives, from learning problems to continuing health problems.
It is time that death was reintroduced as an essential factor in the ‘life’ equation. Perhaps then people might take care of their bodies and not stuff them with alcohol and unhealthy food.
Children born defective should be allowed to die with dignity. Old people who have abused their bodies should suffer the consequences

Uh Ybgirp...

Firstly - you don't seem to make any allowance for people who haven't abused their bodies and are genuinely in need of an organ.
You will find most of the time, that those who have been assessed as at-risk individuals (people who are likely to abuse their bodies) are lower on the extensive organ waiting lists.

What is so wrong with using the organs of people who have died?

They are dead. Gone. Zip. Even if there is an afterlife, they evidently didn't take their kidneys there.

Defective people should be left to die? What kind of eugenic theory is that? I won't elaborate on the slippery slope that kind of thinking leads to, but I don't think it takes much imagination to envision it.

T R T L,
Your selective misrepresentation of my post and refusal to address the point I made about some of the serious consequences of society’s unconditional embrace of medical technology is unsurprising. That’s how irrational people argue. However, to say that permitting natural selection is a form of eugenics, is insane. What you are proposing is the flip side of the eugenics coin – instead of encouraging the ‘beautiful’, you are following in the footsteps of privileged humans before you, resulting in the inbreeding of the wealthy and the decline of the ruling classes into the chinless wonders and mentally retarded parasites that lorded it over Europe for centuries with such disastrous results.
I respect ‘Life’. You confuse ‘Life’ with mere existence.

Opt out...100% from me. I've been arguing this for the last couple of years. We are an extremely apathetic nation until something strikes us as individuals, then we become passionate about it...I know this from experience because my missus had a double lung transplant and I can't stress enough how important this opt out idea is....people are dying everyday that could otherwise be saved.

Ygirp

[Said]

"self-indulgent Westerners to live beyond their allotted span."

The problem I see is you have lost the oportunity to present the counter argument. To explain why some people do not want change it and point out how the best sytem with the very best of intentions can and will be abused.

I put it to you your clear dislike of Westerners is the reason for the tone of your posts.

Thats very sad and I am sorry for you.

However those same self-indulgent Westerners have give much to third world countries so why should they not want to give or do anything to save one of "their own"?

There are givers and takers in this world and I am proud to say Australians are givers.

I fall short of many becuase I have often questioned our genorosity.

Sometimes it comes back and haunts you

No, no, ybgirp is right insofar as selective interpretation is a method of distorting an argument - ybgirp's pointed out a stance, and I've only focused on a minor element of the statement - while I may believe it is logical simplification, I concede simplifications don't necessarily do the argument justice: so instead I will address the argument more soundly.

Firstly: your argument in relation to organ harvesting:

I'll concede this is an important issue, and I wouldn't condone it by any means. I've had an interest in the Chinese organ harvesting situation for quite some time and have written articles on the subject. I have personally spoken to people who have accompanied relatives who went to China to receive organs, not being eligible in Australia for health reasons such as diabetes.
While I can't blame them for making whatever choice necessary to extend their life, that doesn't mean I condone the taking of organs without permission.
Nobody here is arguing in favour of that, and in pushing this particular wheelbarrow, it is you who is indulging in selective interpretation.

You also argue that by prolonging these lives, it is not of benefit to society.
I would be interested as to where you draw the line - when do you stop treating somebody? Is all medicine suspect, or are you simply against organ donation? What about people with the genetic defects you describe? Should somebody with, say, cystic fibrosis not be eligible to receive medication? After all, it takes significant resources to prolong their life.