As someone who watched his sister die from a failing liver this story really pisses me off. She was continually jacked around on the transplant list and suffered for years before she died. I read stories like this and about Dave Crosby, who drank and did drugs on the way to destroying his liver and I don't feel a damn bit bad about giving the finger to people that tell me I should be an organ donar.
It is kind of like prisoners getting vaccines etc as a priority ahead of members of the public because they are under the care of the state, even though they are... well... bad people.
I understand that some people are harder to match for transplants than others, but no matter how easy it is to find an organ you would accept, prisoners should be right at the bottom of the list.
Edit: Especially those who have damaged their organs through suicide attempts. I was pretty sure that a major condition for organ transplant is that you have proven capable of looking after it (and yourself) to give the best possible chance of integration. Being suicidal should get you chucked off the list faster than anything I would have thought.
Just to play devil's advocate here but why should you, or anyone else for that matter, be the arbiter of who 'deserves' a transplant?
I was under the impression that transplants were given out according to a queue (and organ match of course) so that value judgements about who should/shouldn't get one are avoided.
That being said, it's certainly an emotive subject.
SilverMK2 wrote:
I understand that some people are harder to match for transplants than others, but no matter how easy it is to find an organ you would accept, prisoners should be right at the bottom of the list.
I can't exactly agree with all of that. What if someone is a petty theif, or in for minor offenses?
Does the system discriminate based upon special conditions, such as prisoners and inmates, or if there has been rulings such that they found that minorities and/or those found to be discriminated against need a proportional amount of donations sent to them?
Golden Eyed Scout wrote:I can't exactly agree with all of that. What if someone is a petty theif, or in for minor offenses?
Given that all other factors between potiential recipients are the same (or close enough to make no appreciable difference), I would give the organ to the person who is not in prison every time.
@ Filbert - As far as I am aware, organs are given out based on suitability of match, length of time on the waiting list, general health condition, as well as the person getting the organ filling a long list of social and other criteria.
But sometimes it can come down to who can get into hospital the fastest, how far they can transport the organ before it has been "on ice" too long and cannot be implanted, etc as well.
I know a little about the process, and let me tell its a long, drawn out, convoluted process...
First you get diagnosed with something that requires a transplant to live.
Then your case is presented to a board of doctors who decide if your a good candidate for the transplant (why you need the transplant is usually irrelevant).
If you are approved you are put on the list, and there are numerous factors that can move you up or down that list.
Golden Eyed Scout wrote:I can't exactly agree with all of that. What if someone is a petty theif, or in for minor offenses?
Given that all other factors between potiential recipients are the same (or close enough to make no appreciable difference), I would give the organ to the person who is not in prison every time.
@ Filbert - As far as I am aware, organs are given out based on suitability of match, length of time on the waiting list, as well as the person getting the organ filling a long list of social and other criteria.
But sometimes it can come down to who can get into hospital the fastest, how far they can transport the organ before it has been "on ice" too long and cannot be implanted, etc as well.
What about if your choice is between someone in prison and no-one? All organs aren't suitable for any recipient, because of the rejection factors.
filbert wrote:Just to play devil's advocate here but why should you, or anyone else for that matter, be the arbiter of who 'deserves' a transplant?
I was under the impression that transplants were given out according to a queue (and organ match of course) so that value judgements about who should/shouldn't get one are avoided.
That being said, it's certainly an emotive subject.
It's a fair statement you make, but for years I watched my sister being told she was at the top of the list, only to be later told that she wasn't that bad and slid back down the list. This took quite a toll on both her and her children.
Seeing this guy and others like him get jumped to the top spot is a real pisser. Out all the people out there waiting on transplants, I can be pretty sure with what I learned from my sister's experience that he wasn't the only match.
Kilkrazy wrote:What about if your choice is between someone in prison and no-one? All organs aren't suitable for any recipient, because of the rejection factors.
Of course. As I said, they would just be at the bottom of the list, not off the list entirely.
Edit: I can't access the article at work, but as I said, I am pretty sure a major condition of getting an organ is the fact that you will treat it well. Someone who damaged their own liver attempting suicide probably should not be on the transplant list at all. Certainly not until they can be proven to be capable of looking after the organ, etc.
I'm going to be the bad guy here and say why the hell haven't we legalized assisted suicide yet? If someone wants to die they should be able too without having to do something dangerous (in an uncalculated way). Even in states that have said it was legal the government intervenes and strong arms so that any doctors engaging in the practice will lose their license.
filbert wrote:Just to play devil's advocate here but why should you, or anyone else for that matter, be the arbiter of who 'deserves' a transplant?
I was under the impression that transplants were given out according to a queue (and organ match of course) so that value judgements about who should/shouldn't get one are avoided.
That being said, it's certainly an emotive subject.
It's a fair statement you make, but for years I watched my sister being told she was at the top of the list, only to be later told that she wasn't that bad and slid back down the list. This took quite a toll on both her and her children.
Seeing this guy and others like him get jumped to the top spot is a real pisser. Out all the people out there waiting on transplants, I can be pretty sure with what I learned from my sister's experience that he wasn't the only match.
Oh don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you and I would hate to be in your sister's position. All I am saying is, once you start going down the road of making value judgements based on who 'deserves' a transplant over someone else, then it is a slippery slope.
As others have pointed out the process, there is an element of that already; the crucial part is, the judgement is made by a doctor and presumably for sound medical reasons, not through rabid tabloid sensationalism.
ShivanAngel wrote:You can be at the top of the list for 5 years and not get a liver...
Just because you are at the top doesnt mean the next one is yours, there is typing, cross matching, and chance of rejection to consider....
Some other things is quality of life after the transplant, how long they will live after they get it, will they need another one in 5-10 years..
I understand that, but she was told she was across the board good in all areas that qualified her for a transplant, only to see herself knocked back down the list several times. It was like watching a cat and mouse game being played with her. She'd be told there was a suitable match, then told she wasn't bad enough to recieve the new liver. It was pretty sickening to see happen to her.
Also I mentioned Dave Crosby. If that goober wasn't who he was, he would have been disqualified on the quality of life consideration alone, considering the fact he destoyed his own liver with drugs and alcohol.
ShivanAngel wrote:You can be at the top of the list for 5 years and not get a liver...
Just because you are at the top doesnt mean the next one is yours, there is typing, cross matching, and chance of rejection to consider....
Some other things is quality of life after the transplant, how long they will live after they get it, will they need another one in 5-10 years..
I understand that, but she was told she was across the board good in all areas that qualified her for a transplant, only to see herself knocked back down the list several times. It was like watching a cat and mouse game being played with her. She'd be told there was a suitable match, then told she wasn't bad enough to recieve the new liver. It was pretty sickening to see happen to her.
It is and it might not be the best system devised but it works...
Im not saying that i agree with the judgement made in the opening post, just trying to explain what goes on...
Kilkrazy wrote:What about if your choice is between someone in prison and no-one? All organs aren't suitable for any recipient, because of the rejection factors.
Of course. As I said, they would just be at the bottom of the list, not off the list entirely.
Edit: I can't access the article at work, but as I said, I am pretty sure a major condition of getting an organ is the fact that you will treat it well. Someone who damaged their own liver attempting suicide probably should not be on the transplant list at all. Certainly not until they can be proven to be capable of looking after the organ, etc.
The article is very sketchy though it provides a springboard for discussion.
People in the UK have been refused a liver transplant because they knacked their first liver through excessive drinking and the consultants thought they would just knack their second liver too. This seems to me to be a valid medical judgement.
The case of the attempted suicide accused murderer is somewhat more complex.
There's no certainty a failed suicide will try to kill themself again. From that perspective, the failed suicide is probably as deserving of a new liver as anyone else. If he wants to commit suicide he could do it by refusing consent for the operation. The transplant issue should be examined by a psychiatrist.
The second point is about him being an alleged murderer. The article says he confessed to police. This means he has not been convicted, so from a legal viewpoint he is as deserving of medical aid as anyone else. In fact, without the liver transplant he probably wouldn't be well enough to stand trial.
Some people no doubt feel that the person should be refused a transplant because he confessed to murder and then knacked his own liver. I can understand that feeling. It is a rare enough situation that there probably isn't any relevant case law, so it would be best to allow the justice system to take its course and perhaps new case law will be developed through that process.
Yeah the attempted suicide thing is a whole different matter. If the person attempted suicide, has been rehabilitated, and is now in need of a liver, whats the issue. People that commit suicide are sick, and need help. Who are you to judge that they are undeserving of a liver transplant. I know the murderer thing is a different argument entirely. However saying that someone who attempted suicide and has been rehabilitated should be denied the same medical care as someone who hasnt is just wrong...
BTW at least in the states even "normal" people have to have a psych eval to be put on the list!
I'm just saying the option of assisted suicide might have been one the guy would have taken after his confession. For all we know he could have been an organ donor himself after his assisted suicide and instead of the world being -1 liver we'd be +1 instead and the guy wouldn't have to live with what he's done as well as costing lots of money for jail/medical care. The only thing that makes a suicidal person "crazy" or "different" is that a majority of the people aren't saying the same thing. If 60% of people woke up tomorrow and said the sun was blue, we'd probably start calling the sun blue.
I am shocked at the lack of sympathy for this poor man's plight. Society has a duty to protect this man, no matter the cost. All you naysayers are just evil. Won't someone think of the children?
Honestly they should have just put a bullet in his head. Why people have sympathy for people who have a complete disregard for life is beyond me. He doesn't deserve sympathy.
when we start playing favorite for who deserves what when we start to get a corrupted and unfair system. When we start saying things like "murderers dont derserve medical care" we start to lose our ability to feel compassion for anything. Humans are humans you are no less or no more becuase of what choices you made in life
garret wrote:when we start playing favorite for who deserves what when we start to get a corrupted and unfair system. When we start saying things like "murderers dont derserve medical care" we start to lose our ability to feel compassion for anything. Humans are humans you are no less or no more becuase of what choices you made in life
I feel no inclination to save someone just because they are human if they also happen to be a horrible, horrible person who has gone to such lengths to hurt innocent people. This has no bearing on how I feel about people who don't commit murder, except that I feel it is unjust to force them to carry the costs of keeping such a person alive and in good health.
Well Alex i respectfully disagree. No one should be denied anything required to live based on past choices. I will always beleive people are all the equal not matter what they did.
Just out of curiosity, for those who have said that being a criminal should throw you to the bottom of the list, what other social factors should throw you to the bottom of the list?
Should someone who donates money to charity be given a liver before someone who doesn't, all other factors being equal?
Relapse wrote: As someone who watched his sister die from a failing liver this story really pisses me off. She was continually jacked around on the transplant list and suffered for years before she died. I read stories like this and about Dave Crosby, who drank and did drugs on the way to destroying his liver and I don't feel a damn bit bad about giving the finger to people that tell me I should be an organ donar.
Hang on, your sister died for lack of an organ transplant, but you're happy to not be a donor yourself because your organ might go to someone you disapprove of.
The only real lesson here is that organs are in short supply, largely because so few people bother to become organ donors. So you know, just be an organ donor.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I'm going to be the bad guy here and say why the hell haven't we legalized assisted suicide yet? If someone wants to die they should be able too without having to do something dangerous (in an uncalculated way). Even in states that have said it was legal the government intervenes and strong arms so that any doctors engaging in the practice will lose their license.
Because in a vast majority of cases suicide is product of an emotionally unstable mind. Attempting suicide is generally an illness, not a decision.
HighProphetOfDestruction wrote:Honestly they should have just put a bullet in his head. Why people have sympathy for people who have a complete disregard for life is beyond me. He doesn't deserve sympathy.
Umm, in most cases suicide is a product of mental illness. The human mind is pretty much hardwired for self-preservation, to reach a point where a person would consider suicide they basically have to have those defences broken down, to have reached a point where the brain isn't working as it should. Suicide is the product of a breakdown.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Just out of curiosity, for those who have said that being a criminal should throw you to the bottom of the list, what other social factors should throw you to the bottom of the list?
Absolutely nothing.
Should someone who donates money to charity be given a liver before someone who doesn't, all other factors being equal?
If not, why not?
No. All I ask of Joe Average is that he doesn't actively make life worse for innocent people, through malice or negligence. Charity is a commendable act, but I would not hold a lack of charity against someone.
But if you're punishing people for being convicted of a crime in a demonstratably non-perfect criminal justice system why is it not reasonable to reward people for their actions when those actions can be perfectly recorded?
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:But if you're punishing people for being convicted of a crime in a demonstratably non-perfect criminal justice system why is it not reasonable to reward people for their actions when those actions can be perfectly recorded?
Really, it should just be based on availability. As has been stated earlier, it's a slippery slope determining who "deserves" and organ or not. The closest we can get to a "fair" system is one that runs on matches to donors and availability. If he's a criminal or saint should come second, honestly. Assuming every criminal is a bad guy is too much of a generalization, and assuming every guy who doesn't commit a crime is a better person is also a large generalization.
The fact that he got the organ doesn't disturb me, though. Why he wanted to off himself is a bit more worrying. Hell, I'd be sad in his position, but suicidal?
garret wrote:when we start playing favorite for who deserves what when we start to get a corrupted and unfair system. When we start saying things like "murderers dont derserve medical care" we start to lose our ability to feel compassion for anything. Humans are humans you are no less or no more becuase of what choices you made in life
Compassion is over rated.
As the Immortal Bard once said: Baby Jebus loves all freely. Everyone else has to pay.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Just out of curiosity, for those who have said that being a criminal should throw you to the bottom of the list, what other social factors should throw you to the bottom of the list?
Should someone who donates money to charity be given a liver before someone who doesn't, all other factors being equal?
If not, why not?
Anyone who displeases me, bottom of the list (ok, lets be clear, top of the list for nonvoluntary organ removal)
Relapse wrote: As someone who watched his sister die from a failing liver this story really pisses me off. She was continually jacked around on the transplant list and suffered for years before she died. I read stories like this and about Dave Crosby, who drank and did drugs on the way to destroying his liver and I don't feel a damn bit bad about giving the finger to people that tell me I should be an organ donar.
Hang on, your sister died for lack of an organ transplant, but you're happy to not be a donor yourself because your organ might go to someone you disapprove of.
The only real lesson here is that organs are in short supply, largely because so few people bother to become organ donors. So you know, just be an organ donor.
I give the finger because I saw my sister jacked around told she was at the top of the list, then told she wasn't that bad off and put back down the list time and again. She had to sit back and watch as suitable organs were given to someone else because she was "healthy enough". This went on until her liver had so badly disintigrated she died.
Then I see people like this murdering bastard who tried to kill himself, destroying his liver in the process, and David Crosby, who abused himself most of his life, get rushed to the front of the line and I don't feel an f@#$ing bit of sympathy.
Sit through a relative getting jacked around by this crap, being put at the head of the list and then dropped back down for years while seeing people who destroyed their health by being alcoholics and drug users getting shunted in front of them. Then watch that person die after being told their liver was good enough to last for a bit longer and then tell me I'm short sighted.
I don't mean to come off as harsh as this sounds, because I can understand your view. For me though, after my sister's experience,I will never donate anything unless I knew it would go to someone like my sister and not some alcoholic or drug using bastard that is trying to avoid the consequences of his idiocy.
I'm not a donor because I really have no compassion for people I dont know (shortsighted, egoistical etc. etc. I know, heard it all before, don't give a crap).
Also, I'm meat, so something should eat me when I die. Bugs or whatever it is.
I believe in giving back to the earth, not burning yourself to just add that little cherry of fumes to the atmosphere.
Soladrin wrote:I'm not a donor because I really have no compassion for people I dont know (shortsighted, egoistical etc. etc. I know, heard it all before, don't give a crap).
Also, I'm meat, so something should eat me when I die. Bugs or whatever it is.
I believe in giving back to the earth, not burning yourself to just add that little cherry of fumes to the atmosphere.
See, i find that weird, not the lack of compassion for people you dont know, the whole "giving back to earth" thing.
Im not a religious man, i believe we are a rising ape, not a fallen angel. As a result, i dont give a gak what happens to my body when i die. They can stuff it and put it in a local pub as far as im concerned (hey thats not a bad idea!) but... well.. that being the case, im an organ donor. I mean, what the hell do i care what they do to my body when im gone?
Are you a religious man then? Ive only heard the argument about "keeping your body whole" from religious groups, not just people that think you should give your body to the earth.
Just seems like a waste to me.. if you can save some lives at no cost to yourself (your dead), why not?
Im not a religious man, i believe we are a rising ape, not a fallen angel. As a result, i dont give a gak what happens to my body when i die. They can stuff it and put it in a local pub as far as im concerned (hey thats not a bad idea!)
Substitute pub for barbeque joint or mexican restaraunt and dude I'm right there with you.
Im not a religious man, i believe we are a rising ape, not a fallen angel. As a result, i dont give a gak what happens to my body when i die. They can stuff it and put it in a local pub as far as im concerned (hey thats not a bad idea!)
Substitute pub for barbeque joint or mexican restaraunt and dude I'm right there with you.
As requested in his will, Bentham's body was dissected as part of a public anatomy lecture. Afterward, the skeleton and head were preserved and stored in a wooden cabinet called the "Auto-icon", with the skeleton stuffed out with hay and dressed in Bentham's clothes. Originally kept by his disciple Thomas Southwood Smith,[25] it was acquired by University College London in 1850. It is normally kept on public display at the end of the South Cloisters in the main building of the college, but for the 100th and 150th anniversaries of the college, it was brought to the meeting of the College Council, where it was listed as "present but not voting".
The Auto-icon has a wax head, as Bentham's head was badly damaged in the preservation process. The real head was displayed in the same case for many years, but became the target of repeated student pranks, including being stolen on more than one occasion. It is now locked away securely.
@ relapse: You make it sound like it would be better if nobody was given transplants. Make it completely fair.
If people were automatically considered donors when they died, with a simple and easy opt-out clause for whatever reason, the entire issue would be avoided. The waiting list would be dramatically reduced and lives saved. I see no possible issues this could cause other than putting more work on hospitals by saving more lives.
Also, I think a lot of people in this thread need to watch The Dark Knight again. You know, the bit with the ferries?
Edit: Did anyone else think the OP's website seemed like it was written by a twelve year old?
Soup and a roll wrote:@ relapse: You make it sound like it would be better if nobody was given transplants. Make it completely fair.
If people were automatically considered donors when they died, with a simple and easy opt-out clause for whatever reason, the entire issue would be avoided. The waiting list would be dramatically reduced and lives saved. I see no possible issues this could cause other than putting more work on hospitals by saving more lives.
Also, I think a lot of people in this thread need to watch The Dark Knight again. You know, the bit with the ferries?
Edit: Did anyone else think the OP's website seemed like it was written by a twelve year old?
I just put my reasons out there for not being a donar. If someone told me I was an automatic donar unless I jumped through hoops to make that not the case, I'd get ugly on them real fast.
Soladrin wrote:I'm not a donor because I really have no compassion for people I dont know (shortsighted, egoistical etc. etc. I know, heard it all before, don't give a crap)..
Ironic that such a quality is one of the main characteristics of anti-social behavior and an indicator for the potential to be a serial killer...
Who knows, maybe the next thread like this might be about you...
Chrysaor686 wrote:I'm actually glad he's getting a transplant, as chances are, if he does, he'll end up getting raped and stabbed in a prison somewhere.
Look on the bright side of things.
But then he'll need an ass transplant...
@Relapse: What you've experienced sounds really rough and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. Personally, I have no objection to anyone using any part of my body when I'm gone, if it will do any good, so that definitely colours my point of view. To be in the situation where people are dying through lack of suitable organs when they are being burnt or buried daily horrifies me.
In general, I think western society has gotten too enamored with the idea that we can write legal/procedural systems so objective and encompassing that we will remove the need to make moral judgements.
I'm not sure why we think that's possible, or a good thing.
Last night I had the TV on while I was painting, and I heard some crime show about a guy who deliberately poisoned and drowned his wife, then used the insurance money to pay for a wedding to his mistress. He actually was planning the wedding and sending out invitations while she was still alive. Not a bright guy. Anyway, he got out in some ridiculously brief period, even after the jury had considered the death penalty during sentencing. Something like 15 years.
Next show is about prisons, and there are some younger guys (18-21) in a prison... One of them is in there doing 10 years for recruiting kids into the Crips...
So that's 15 years for premeditated murder as an adult, and then 10 years for a minor recruiting other minors into his gang.
That's just not even close.
So, at the end of the day, my feeling is that all our "objective" systems are not objective, and end up doing little more than tying the hands of honest people, and underwiting the bad decisions of idiots.
I also don't think that it's "moral" to recuse oneself from decisionmaking. To say "who am I to judge a murderer" isn't the height of compassion and wisdom that some people seem to think, it's really just refusing to make a judgement. Judgement is what separates us from animals. That and thumbs.
So, at the end of the day, my feeling is that all our "objective" systems are not objective, and end up doing little more than tying the hands of honest people, and underwiting the bad decisions of idiots.
I also don't think that it's "moral" to recuse oneself from decisionmaking. To say "who am I to judge a murderer" isn't the height of compassion and wisdom that some people seem to think, it's really just refusing to make a judgement. Judgement is what separates us from animals. That and thumbs.
I don't know about the USA but in the UK system the judge always used to have discretion when sentencing within guidelines laid down by parliament. The judge would take into account the severity of the offence, previous offences, any mitigating circumstances, and previous judgements in similar cases.
This system has become somewhat corrupted by the government tieing judges' hands with specific sentencing rules, which have on occasion produced perverse results.
People should make judgements, however many people on the Internet are very quick to jump to judgement based on some short newspaper report of a case. They don't have the full facts, they haven't followed the case as presented in court, and they certainly should not think they can make a better judgement than the formal system of the law. After all, it has been built up over many decades based on widely held ideas of morality and justice.
Soladrin wrote:I'm not a donor because I really have no compassion for people I dont know (shortsighted, egoistical etc. etc. I know, heard it all before, don't give a crap)..
Ironic that such a quality is one of the main characteristics of anti-social behavior and an indicator for the potential to be a serial killer...
Who knows, maybe the next thread like this might be about you...
Yes, because not caring about people I don't know, and wanting to kill people is the same thing.
After all, it has been built up over many decades based on widely held ideas of morality and justice.
I don't mean to suggest that it's bad to try to set precedent, to standardize punishments based on consistent criteria, etc. etc.
I think all of that is a very good idea.
On the other hand, life and wisdom are all about balance. Just as you don't want to have a totally arbitrary legal system, fully subject to the whim of a judge, you also don't want to be so hidebound with rules and precedent that nobody can make any judgements anymore.
It seems to me that we've gone a little past the mark towards the latter case. Nothing terrible, but just a bit too far.
I also think that the idea of a "jury of one's peers" while a nice concept, ends up being a very bad system. I'm not sure how one would structure it better, but it should really be a "jury of skilled, experienced and objective judges." As it stands, it's not really a "jury of one's peers" so much as "a bunch of lunatic edge conditions carefully selected by the defense team to get a hung jury."
I'm sure it's different in other places, but you get a lot of that in the US.
And yes, I realize that a lot of trials don't go to a jury, and actually are judged by a panel of people qualified to do the job, but to have both that and jury trials at the same time strikes me as critically inconsistant.
For me, it all comes down to proof. More and more so because of the technology we possess. If it can be PROVEN scientifically that somebody is guilty, that should be more important than the crime. In my opinion we should tighten our standards for proving guilt, and increase the severity of our punishments.
Mannahnin wrote:I'm an organ donor. So should we all be.
I'll be happy to have the rest of me buried or burned. The more of me that can go to help others the better.
what is giving organs is against ones belief(cant think of one but i know there are some)
Me i want to become a donar. The reason why is i see value in all life. I wouldnt care at all when i die if my liver goes to a murderer of a john doe. I believe all life is sacred and should be protected at all cost.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phryxis wrote:
I also think that the idea of a "jury of one's peers" while a nice concept, ends up being a very bad system. I'm not sure how one would structure it better, but it should really be a "jury of skilled, experienced and objective judges." As it stands, it's not really a "jury of one's peers" so much as "a bunch of lunatic edge conditions carefully selected by the defense team to get a hung jury."
I remember a movie called runaway jury. a Jury consultant says "you think an average jury member understands "product liability" No. they are roofers who want to go home and let cable tv wash over them." but your idea can also produce Biased people. Like "i have seen it all before. It is always the husband that kills the wife" Both have there flaws.
garret wrote:The reason why is i see value in all life. I wouldnt care at all when i die if my liver goes to a murderer of a john doe. I believe all life is sacred and should be protected at all cost.
So you'd save someone so he can go on to kill that which you think is sacred? Good job there.
Soladrin wrote:I'm not a donor because I really have no compassion for people I dont know (shortsighted, egoistical etc. etc. I know, heard it all before, don't give a crap)..
Ironic that such a quality is one of the main characteristics of anti-social behavior and an indicator for the potential to be a serial killer...
Who knows, maybe the next thread like this might be about you...
Yes, because not caring about people I don't know, and wanting to kill people is the same thing.
Wanting to kill people isn't the same as being a serial killer. Soldiers legitimately want to kill their enemies, while having compassion for them.
Serial killers by and large are psychopaths. They don't view people as people, merely as moving objects like a kind of biological robot. They have no empathy with them.
Having no compassion for people you don't know is a sign of lack of empathy.
Like "i have seen it all before. It is always the husband that kills the wife" Both have there flaws.
There's also issues of bribery and intimidation that come up when you've got people in positions of judgement like that.
So, yes, nothing is perfect. But the fact that OJ got off is not a very good representation of our legal system. It basically says that people can have DNA explained to them, and then decide it's just voodoo, and ignore it. That's NOT good.
If we do want to use a "peer" based legal system, then it needs to be more realistic. None of this filtering they have now. It should be (for example) take 15 people entirely at random, no screening, and then if 12 of them can agree on a verdict, that's the verdict. That lets you filter out lunatics, but still have a high degree of agreement.
Perhaps the jurors were influenced in their thinking by the recent case of Rodney King, when the police officers were found innocent.
This may have led them to disbelieve the white LAPD officers' testimony.
It isn't racism if you decide a group are liars because they have a proven record of lying about their interactions with black people. It's racism if you think all white people are liars because they are white.
It isn't racism if you decide a group are liars because they have a proven record of lying about their interactions with black people. It's racism if you think all white people are liars because they are white.
Meh, kinda. It depends on the size of the group.
It could be argued that white people have a history of lying to American Indians. But if an American Indian said white people are liars, I think most people would call that racism.
To assume that the California law enforcement community is a bunch of liars isn't exactly racism, it's more like "profession-ism," but I don't think anybody views things that specifically. It's race vs race in most people's minds. White cops are just enforcing the white man's worldview.
garret wrote:
what is giving organs is against ones belief(cant think of one but i know there are some)
Its mainly Jews and Moslems. In fact they cause huge queues with the coroners office. You see Jews and Moslems both must be buried within 24 hours, so they get automatic priority. Others just have to wait, this can mean families waiting two weeks for the body to be returned due to cycling reprioritising.
Jews and Moslems also do not like autopsys, cutting up the body before burial is bad doctrine. This is overridden only in cases of criminal investigation. For similar reasons they normally also dont become organ donors.
Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses also have restrictions on organ donation, but not on autopsy as far as I am aware. The issue here is blood mixing.
The only practical rather than doctrinal reason for donor or autopsy refusal in relgion is if a ressurrection is being attempted. The current record for raising of the dead is 26 persons from a mortutary attendent in Argentina. These claims are difficult to verify, however some are odd enough to silence all but the most recalcitrant sceptics. The man raised from the dead who I met was dead for 80 minutes, long enough to guarantee he would be thoroughly cabbaged due to oxygen loss to the brain, but he came back ok. Charismatic Christians do believe in resurrection prayer, I myself do, but there are practical limits. Having your chest cut open and the organs detached and examined is a bit of a downer. Still while the beliefs of Jews and Moslems are respected (they are essentially the same thing but on a future timescale) Christian beleifs are not respected and the standard procedure of administering an autopsy is often practiced in the Uk against the wishes of the family of deceased Charismatic Christians.
Phryxis wrote:If we do want to use a "peer" based legal system, then it needs to be more realistic. None of this filtering they have now. It should be (for example) take 15 people entirely at random, no screening, and then if 12 of them can agree on a verdict, that's the verdict. That lets you filter out lunatics, but still have a high degree of agreement.
No filtering system == Lunatics are filtered out of the system.
It isn't racism if you decide a group are liars because they have a proven record of lying about their interactions with black people. It's racism if you think all white people are liars because they are white.
Meh, kinda. It depends on the size of the group.
It could be argued that white people have a history of lying to American Indians. But if an American Indian said white people are liars, I think most people would call that racism.
To assume that the California law enforcement community is a bunch of liars isn't exactly racism, it's more like "profession-ism," but I don't think anybody views things that specifically. It's race vs race in most people's minds. White cops are just enforcing the white man's worldview.
I don't know whether black people think all white dentists are racist, or all white baseball referees, or all white taxi drivers.
It could be argued that white people have a history of lying to American Indians. But if an American Indian said white people are liars, I think most people would call that racism.
No, most white people would laugh, call them a drunk and do a fake rain dance to mock them. Then 99% of the other whites present would laugh. And that would be the racist part of said interaction.
Orlanth wrote:Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses also have restrictions on organ donation, but not on autopsy as far as I am aware. The issue here is blood mixing.
I don't know what restrictions Jehova's Witnesses have against donating organs, but there's no doctrine in the Mormon church I know of that is against it. I know people that have recieved transplants that are Mormon, and they are pretty devout followers. As far as blood mixing goes, there are blood drives all the time announced in the Mormon chapel I attend looking for donars.
Orlanth wrote:Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses also have restrictions on organ donation, but not on autopsy as far as I am aware. The issue here is blood mixing.
I don't know what restrictions Jehova's Witnesses have against donating organs, but there's no doctrine in the Mormon church I know of that is against it. I know people that have recieved transplants that are Mormon, and they are pretty devout followers. As far as blood mixing goes, there are blood drives all the time announced in the Mormon chapel I attend looking for donars.
I can accept that, it mighht be just the JW's. I pointed out I wasnt certainon that point, hence the AFAIK.
CT GAMER wrote:
No, most white people would laugh, call them a drunk and do a fake rain dance to mock them. Then 99% of the other whites present would laugh. And that would be the racist part of said interaction.
Assigning any characteristic to any person on the sole basis of race is racism. It would indeed be racist to conclude that a white person is a liar because he is white. One can be racist against the accepted majority; stop reading Christopher Doob.
No filtering system == Lunatics are filtered out of the system.
That's the thing, typical jury screening is done with the intention of INCLUDING lunatics. If the defendant is black, they're trying to get as many black nationalists on the jury as possible. Etc. etc.
When the goal of jury selection is to include lunatics, the baseline level of lunacy is the best you're going to do.
I don't know whether black people think all white dentists are racist, or all white baseball referees, or all white taxi drivers.
Well, "black people" think lots of different things. But among those that do think in terms of white racism, and consider it a real problem in their world, I think their tendency will be to consider all white people to be racist, regardless of profession.
That's generally how racism works. You generalize a whole race. And, hall-of-mirrors as it is, assuming that a whole race is racist is also racist. Generally by the time somebody is casual enough to make such rampant generalizations, they're happy enough to apply it to the whole race. But that's just in general, generally speaking.
And that would be the racist part of said interaction.
I'm not sure I track the point. That white people are the only racists in any given situation?
Speaking of American Indians, ever been to Foxwoods?
garret wrote:The reason why is i see value in all life. I wouldnt care at all when i die if my liver goes to a murderer of a john doe. I believe all life is sacred and should be protected at all cost.
So you'd save someone so he can go on to kill that which you think is sacred? Good job there.
Who said he will be allowed back in the general population? He would just be allowed to go on living. And again if i think all life is sacred i even have to think the life is sacred for people who dont.
Relapse wrote:I don't mean to come off as harsh as this sounds, because I can understand your view. For me though, after my sister's experience,I will never donate anything unless I knew it would go to someone like my sister and not some alcoholic or drug using bastard that is trying to avoid the consequences of his idiocy.
I really don't understand your view. I feel sorry for you and your sister, that must have been horrible to go through, but the problem, surely, could be fixed by having more organ donors, not less?
If there was an opt-in system for organ donation, the number of organs available for people like your sister would increase dramatically. While I understand you're angry over what she went through, surely the only thing that really matters is stopping another family suffering as yours did?
Chrysaor686 wrote:I'm actually glad he's getting a transplant, as chances are, if he does, he'll end up getting raped and stabbed in a prison somewhere.
Look on the bright side of things.
Teehee! Anal rape is awesome!
Phryxis wrote:On the other hand, life and wisdom are all about balance. Just as you don't want to have a totally arbitrary legal system, fully subject to the whim of a judge, you also don't want to be so hidebound with rules and precedent that nobody can make any judgements anymore.
Judges have considerable leniancy in sentencing. This is becoming less true with mandatory sentencing, so I'm guessing you're opposed to that recent fad?
I also think that the idea of a "jury of one's peers" while a nice concept, ends up being a very bad system. I'm not sure how one would structure it better, but it should really be a "jury of skilled, experienced and objective judges." As it stands, it's not really a "jury of one's peers" so much as "a bunch of lunatic edge conditions carefully selected by the defense team to get a hung jury."
The thing is, judges tend to come from certain backgrounds, and while they are very learned and considered, there can be an institutional bias. As such it is a useful addition to a court system to have one level in which you can be judged by people drawn from the general population.
It's worth noting that you can have opt to not have a trial by jury, and if you appeal it will be heard by a judges.
garret wrote:what is giving organs is against ones belief(cant think of one but i know there are some)
Me i want to become a donar. The reason why is i see value in all life. I wouldnt care at all when i die if my liver goes to a murderer of a john doe. I believe all life is sacred and should be protected at all cost.
As others have said, some Jewish and Muslim groups have religious beliefs about the body after death, so they don't like cremation or organ donation.
Thing is, most people aren't organ donors, and it isn't because of religious convictions, it's just that they don't really want to think about it. Which makes sense, if people spent time thinking about their mortality then they wouldn't buy the motorbike that ends up turning them into a potential organ donor.
So instead of the current system of 'opt in' - where you have to make an effort to become an organ donor, we should take on an 'opt out' system, where everyone is an organ donor by default, and those who don't want to be can elect to do so.
Relapse wrote:I don't mean to come off as harsh as this sounds, because I can understand your view. For me though, after my sister's experience,I will never donate anything unless I knew it would go to someone like my sister and not some alcoholic or drug using bastard that is trying to avoid the consequences of his idiocy.
I really don't understand your view. I feel sorry for you and your sister, that must have been horrible to go through, but the problem, surely, could be fixed by having more organ donors, not less?
I had a family member die under similar circumstances, though it wasn't in such a harsh manner as Relapse' experience. I also know a couple of other people that are waiting on the list, and living rather uncomfortable lifestyles without their needs addressed. None of this leads me to conclude that mass opinion should have any direct say over who gets that assistance, and that is awesome. I would not have wanted my family member to face even more bureaucracy, in the hope that their chances could have possibly been increased because one dude who did bad things then tried to kill himself got a liver before them. The guy from the article didn't even get the transplant, and it was ONE DUDE. I don't get it.
If there was an opt-in system for organ donation, the number of organs available for people like your sister would increase dramatically. While I understand you're angry over what she went through, surely the only thing that really matters is stopping another family suffering as yours did?
If it matters, I would certainly support opt-out. The amount of good a system like that could do is really quite amazing. I assume you meant opt-out, not opt-in.
Thing is, most people aren't organ donors, and it isn't because of religious convictions, it's just that they don't really want to think about it. Which makes sense, if people spent time thinking about their mortality then they wouldn't buy the motorbike that ends up turning them into a potential organ donor.
I wouldn't be surprised if you were right about that, and the majority of people just didn't want to think about it either way. It also seems likely that a very large portion of that majority wouldn't mind if it were opt-out. I don't think most people need to be convinced that more donors would be a good thing, but the conversation you're likely to have with a person that simply won't agree, is probably going to work along the lines of 'organ harvesting' or something. Not to conclude that a conversation of that sort is inherently paranoid, just that it is definitely resolute in it's thinking.
My organs living beyond me is a pretty cool thought, IMO. I kick ass, I am a demi-god among men.
So instead of the current system of 'opt in' - where you have to make an effort to become an organ donor, we should take on an 'opt out' system, where everyone is an organ donor by default, and those who don't want to be can elect to do so.
They still wouldn't have to think about it, even though I feel there are a great deal of reasons besides religion and mortality.
It is a complicated issue and a tough sell to people that have already decided they would take great offense if 'required' to opt-out. I am not sure what the problems really are, besides checking a single box on a form for records. Privacy maybe, not sure I can even understand why one guy who didn't actually get a transplant, would call for pretty crappy system to be left in place.
This is becoming less true with mandatory sentencing, so I'm guessing you're opposed to that recent fad?
To some extent, yes. I think there's a problem when the rules tell a judge that their assessment isn't good enough, that somebody looking at the "big picture" has a better idea of what justice is than a person looking at a specific case.
I'm far from a legal expert. I suspect that on average, things are pretty consistent and fairly run... But I still get an impression that we spend too much time pretending to be objective, and it's simply not reflective of the reality on the ground.
As such it is a useful addition to a court system to have one level in which you can be judged by people drawn from the general population.
I agree, that's why I'd suggest a reduction in the extent of the attorneys' ability to select the jury. As you point out, though, very little actually goes to trial, and some that does goes to a trial by judges. So it's not like the jury trial is really the central function of the legal system. It's actually pretty minor.
Wrexasaur wrote:It is a complicated issue and a tough sell to people that have already decided they would take great offense if 'required' to opt-out. I am not sure what the problems really are, besides checking a single box on a form for records. Privacy maybe, not sure I can even understand why one guy who didn't actually get a transplant, would call for pretty crappy system to be left in place.
A lack of active refusal is not the same as legitimate consent, morally or legally. An opt-out system effectively weakens your ownership of your own body, which I do not feel is acceptable. It also rewards poor record-keeping in the health system rather than punishing it, which may encourage an unethical hospital to "misplace" a non-consent form.
Personally, I feel that the problems that could arise are not sufficient to deny outright, the possibility for an opt-out system. There are bound to be problems with any system, and there may be explicit legal reasons why it would be iffy to have opt-out in the first place.
The chance that a hospital may do something unethical, while faced with serious legal action for doing so, is not significant enough to be a substantial argument against opt-out. With the possibility to save many, many lives, you really need a very convincing premise to consider it a bad idea altogether, and the main reason I can see, would be the wave of legal action against the very thought of opt-out.
I understand that complete control over your remains after death, is very important for some people. Those who have convictions of that manner, can opt-out. You could argue in terms of theoretical problems that MAY arise on a large scale, but the fact remains that opt-out would save an awful lot of people from painful and prolonged death.
Wrexasaur wrote:I had a family member die under similar circumstances, though it wasn't in such a harsh manner as Relapse' experience. I also know a couple of other people that are waiting on the list, and living rather uncomfortable lifestyles without their needs addressed. None of this leads me to conclude that mass opinion should have any direct say over who gets that assistance, and that is awesome. I would not have wanted my family member to face even more bureaucracy, in the hope that their chances could have possibly been increased because one dude who did bad things then tried to kill himself got a liver before them.
That's a really good argument. I hadn't considered it from that point of view, and know I can see how the argument to prioritise donations to 'better' citizens is even more dubious.
The guy from the article didn't even get the transplant, and it was ONE DUDE. I don't get it.
This is the internet and we are nerds, so among nerds there is a common undercurrent of wanting to a more cruel government. Nerds are the people that took the Judge Dredd satire seriously, afterall. Now there's people saying in all honesty that criminals shouldn't get medical care.
It is very strange.
If it matters, I would certainly support opt-out. The amount of good a system like that could do is really quite amazing. I assume you meant opt-out, not opt-in.
Whoops, I meant opt-out.
RustyKnight wrote:What did you all have to do to become donors? All I had to do was say "yes" when I was getting my driver's license.
It's the same here. Now, what about the people who don't have a driver's license? Stats in the US around 10% of people at the legal driving age don't have licenses, and this is likely understated (some states have more licenses than people of driving age due to expired or deceased people still being on the system). In heavily urbanised states like New York its down around 75%. Imagine adding all those people to the list of potential donors.
Phryxis wrote:To some extent, yes. I think there's a problem when the rules tell a judge that their assessment isn't good enough, that somebody looking at the "big picture" has a better idea of what justice is than a person looking at a specific case.
Sure, but there are minimum and maximum terms for crimes that can temper a judge's opinion. This is quite different to saying 'if you get caught a third time for minor theft we will put you in prison for ten years, regardless of whether you were stealing a $10,000 worth of jewellery or shoplifting a packet of twinkies'.
I'm far from a legal expert. I suspect that on average, things are pretty consistent and fairly run... But I still get an impression that we spend too much time pretending to be objective, and it's simply not reflective of the reality on the ground.
I'm not sure there's all that much effort put into being objective, to be honest.
I agree, that's why I'd suggest a reduction in the extent of the attorneys' ability to select the jury. As you point out, though, very little actually goes to trial, and some that does goes to a trial by judges. So it's not like the jury trial is really the central function of the legal system. It's actually pretty minor.
It is fairly minor, but fairly important in some areas. A lot of social progress has been made by juries reflecting the general consensus on - in the UK public decency laws were very strictly interpreted by
I do agree that jury selection needs improvement, though. Like yourself, I've read in the US the system works to encourage cerrtain types onto juries (rather than just filter out the crazies), and I know in Australia the rules that allow someone to be exempted are so loose that only an idiot would fail to get exempted - and the result is juries full of idiots.
AlexHolker wrote:A lack of active refusal is not the same as legitimate consent, morally or legally. An opt-out system effectively weakens your ownership of your own body, which I do not feel is acceptable. It also rewards poor record-keeping in the health system rather than punishing it, which may encourage an unethical hospital to "misplace" a non-consent form.
Right now there is a very real situation where people die while in need of organs, while people die in accidents wholly indifferent to the fate of their organs, but who never became organ donors because it never occurred to them they might die in an accident.
That seems a considerably more likely and considerably more tragic event than the idea that a hospital might 'lose' a record in order to unethically use a person's organs. Especially when you consider the hospital itself wouldn't actually be keeping the records.
sebster wrote:That's a really good argument. I hadn't considered it from that point of view, and know I can see how the argument to prioritise donations to 'better' citizens is even more dubious.
I would be lying if I said that I wanted this guy specifically to get a transplant, but I am certainly happy that I don't have control over who does get transplants. Everyone wants the help first, obviously, and denying certain individuals access to advanced medical care, would more than likely have all sorts of extra craziness attached. I can't even begin to imagine what a transplant list would look like if the general populous gained control over it. I can only imagine it being scary.
This is the internet and we are nerds, so among nerds there is a common undercurrent of wanting to a more cruel government. Nerds are the people that took the Judge Dredd satire seriously, afterall.
Judge Dredd was a patriot and an upstanding citizen.
Now there's people saying in all honesty that criminals shouldn't get medical care.
It is very strange.
It really depends on what type of care we are talking about.
There are also good arguments for limiting healthcare for inmates substantially. It pisses me off that good people are going without, where convicts are cared for. Again, my opinion nor the majority has enough sense to put anything together that would work. It is a divisive issue, but talking about limiting vaccines and other very cost effective health care, is a rather crappy idea. Talking about whether a criminal who was convicted for raping and murdering children should receive thousands upon thousands of dollars of advanced healthcare, is an entirely different story. I don't know how all of that would work, but the rising costs will hopefully spark some kind of solution.
I feel that being jailed for years at a time, for petty crimes, is punishment enough in itself. Where the most expensive care should be avoided, basic care is no less than an assumption. Vaccines save lives of staff just as much as inmates. They do have to interact, there is really no way around it. It would be interesting to know how prisons deal with problems like AIDS/HIV, or if they actually have any way of doing anything about it.
Prisoners shouldn't get cadillac health care IMO, but they absolutely require basic coverage. Just so we are clear a liver transplant is not a matter of cost, rather one of limited supply. If anything, I would not be surprised if a transplant in this case would save a great deal of money for the prison, even if it is not the only consideration. People will hopefully never see the day where inmates are treated like dogs. Scum some of them may be, but they are certainly still human.
I agree it is bull he should be in a prison rotting or hooked to a chair not getting his life saved. It is like commuting Jason to the er and making the victims wait.
