Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

but what about the things they will do, would you let a criminal have the same privileges as a non criminal citizen?

Im not saying let them free. im saying not deny them life saving operations.

but if the choice was between an innocent man and a criminal would you say they both deserve it?

Yes both deserve it. whoever has the highest chance of surviving would get it.

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?

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.

But carry on, hate away.

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?

That's not charity, it's organ insurance.

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)

sebster wrote:

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?

mattyrm wrote:

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.

Ok, then, why would you? Your dead so it doesn't matter anyway? That question works both ways.

And no, I'm not reliigious at all (if you hadn't noticed this).

And TBH, I don't give much of a crap what happens with my body either, I just wanted to rant on cremation for a bit XD

I'm just big on eating meat :3

Frazzled wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

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.

Funny you should mention that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham

wikipedia wrote:

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.

http://www.fancyapint.com/pubs/pub943.php

I think they kept the glass cabinet with the body inside the pub at one point but had to move it back to the uni when it became 'pranked'

@ 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 thought this thread was an Inquisitor LARP...

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.

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.

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.

I thought attempted suicide was a hangable offence?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Soup and a roll wrote:

But then he'll need an ass transplant...

And there, ladies and gentlemen, is a perfect example of a normal english sentence.

Although in real Engish, it would be "arse transplant", not "ass"

I'm more worried about the objective use of the word, rather than the correct spelling of it.

Phryxis wrote:...
...
...

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.

CT GAMER wrote:

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.

It looks like he didn't actually recieve the liver transplant, and that the New York Post had their facts wrong:

statement from the hospital here denying that he recieved any operation.

and details of the slip-up here