User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 34

  1. #11
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    In the most perfect form of the word its cannibal capitalism we're talking about here, it makes me think about how the Nazi holocaust didnt simply end at killing people but stripped them of all possessions, took the gold from their teeth and then turned them into bars of soap, its sort of what happens when industrialism meets dehumanisation.

    Whether earlier cultures are disdained or not for superstition for believing in the soul, spirit, God, afterlife, ancestoral spirits, they at least preserved a special reverence for people and didnt reduce them to mere resources to be harvested like so much wheat.

    I'm actually a fan of things like opt out rather than opt in organ donation but within a framework of some sort of socialised medicine and health care, where gift relationships are paramount rather than money. Legalising and popularising organ harvesting for profit isnt going to prevent things like the drugged tourist urban legend of organ theft, its only going to make it more likely.
    /facepalm
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  2. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    /facepalm
    Love the way you'll try and let levity fill in for a point when you dont have one.




    Wait. No I dont.

  3. #13
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Harvesters wouldn't profit any more than they do now. They're not the ones who would be getting paid (well, they're already paid), the donors would be. The demand for kidneys is also finite, limited to the number of people who need transplants. People aren't going to start buying kidneys because it's the fashionable thing to do.

    If it's legal to buy and sell kidneys, why would that make it more likely for people to steal them? If I needed a kidney, I wouldn't be thinking "Oh please make buying and selling kidneys legal so I can go kidnap someone and steal their kidney". It would make me less likely to steal someone's kidney because I would have a legal route to take.

    Now look what you did. You tricked me into wasting 10 minutes of my life typing out something that you already knew to be true.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  4. #14

    Default

    Your logic fail is as great as your humour fail. I'll type a response even though you're not going to understand, maybe the gallery can benefit.

    Why would blackmarket and illegal trading disappear because the legitimate market has opened or expanded? It is possible that it would but it is unlikely, the existence of a legitimate market proving demand and prompting greater supply, possible AND likely.

    This is really basic Says law and covered in most basic economics texts, supply creates its own demand, once you legitimise supply you will have demand necessiting greater supply. The free market cant ever be the solution you imagine it will be. Not just in this instance either.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Your logic fail is as great as your humour fail. I'll type a response even though you're not going to understand, maybe the gallery can benefit.

    Why would blackmarket and illegal trading disappear because the legitimate market has opened or expanded? It is possible that it would but it is unlikely, the existence of a legitimate market proving demand and prompting greater supply, possible AND likely.
    Because that's what happens when prohibited products are legalized. Transacting business legally is a cheaper and less risky than doing so illegally.

    This is really basic Says law and covered in most basic economics texts, supply creates its own demand, once you legitimise supply you will have demand necessiting greater supply. The free market cant ever be the solution you imagine it will be. Not just in this instance either.
    Your argument requires kidney demand to be elastic. How many people do you believe will start buying kidneys if trading kidneys was legalized and for what purpose (other than transplant)? There must be some other purpose than transplant for demand to be inelastic.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    What are the long-term implications?
    There are many.

    "Market solutions" run the risk of downshifting social mores. Monetization of human organs may lead to normalizing self-mutilation for material gain. And normalization of that practice may lead to backlash against the poor for refusing to selling their organs to improve their lot in life. Yet again, the poor will be blamed for failing to take advantage of "opportunities" to improve their material quality of life (you know, like serving in wars).

    "Yes we're sorry Mrs. Diaz, you don't qualify for welfare because you aren't taking advantage of all financial resources at your disposal." <----there will be conservatives arguing this if organs are promoted as a legal tender and a personal resource.

    Profiting from organ donation will only discourage insurance companies from seeking preventative treatments for kidney disease (like they need help MINIMIZING incentive ). Insurance and pharmaceutical companies already make a mint keeping people alive rather than making people well and this measure will only metastasize this conflict of interest.

    Insurance companies will be like car dealerships trying to make the sale if they can profit from the transplant, so risks will be downplayed. They're not philanthropists, they want their cut. Period.

    It's bad enough we have drug commercials encouraging consumers to tell their doctors what to prescribe them! Now we can have organ sales middlemen squeezing their ads between Pristiq and National Corn Growers Association tv spots. Kidney sales will be given the same consideration (if not elevated status) as drug therapies, dietary changes, and financial investments. Failing business owners, avid entrepeneurs, and others saddled with financial obstacles will have less scrupulous financial advisers standing by, eager to help them with their newfound sum.

    Many people are not aware that kidney donations are not a lifetime cure for the recipient, they are a temporary fix --10 years at best according to this author. Factor in the number of recipients needing kidneys and their average lifetime expectancy and the math gets ugly. And you can bet insurance companies, drug companies (which will profit enormously from the need to medicate patients daily for life to prevent organ rejection), and organ purchasing interest groups will downplay this figure or alter it if they can manipulate statistics and studies to fuel the trade.

    And while a second kidney may enlarge to compensate partially for the missing one, it will not completely compensate for it, thus putting the donor at greater risk for kidney failure themselves. This is what we call a feedback loop. Should an unexpected illness befall them, they no longer have a back up kidney. --Not to mention their reduced capacity for filtering toxins and alcohol... it will catch up with them by putting extra wear on other organs putting them at risk for other kinds of illness.

    The body is a delicate ecosystem --organs do not live in a vacuum. Damaging or eliminating one affects them all. We don't have duplicate organs to 1) keep us alive, WHILE 2) funding our lifestyles; they are there for a purpose. They're not like those Buy1, Get1 Free Deodorant packs you get at Shoprite and treating them like they are "bonus" will diminish the public's consciousness of their inherent value.

    Kidney donation is not like blood or plasma donation --it is not renewable! And what happens if insurances reject or raise premiums for sellers? As far as I'm aware, they can't do this for donors, but a seller is a voluntary participant and this changes the rules. I have no doubt they'll push hard for the right to do it.

    We are far better off not looking in this direction at all and focusing on growing functional organs. The technology is in the works now. We do not need to entertain dystopic alternatives. I really don't believe it'll come to this... so long as we can prevent profiteers from throwing all caution to the wind.
    "The purpose of life is to be defeated by greater and greater things." - Rainer Maria Rilke

  7. #17
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iwakar View Post
    There are many.

    "Market solutions" run the risk of downshifting social mores. Monetization of human organs may lead to normalizing self-mutilation for material gain. And normalization of that practice may lead to backlash against the poor for refusing to selling their organs to improve their lot in life. Yet again, the poor will be blamed for failing to take advantage of "opportunities" to improve their material quality of life (you know, like serving in wars).

    "Yes we're sorry Mrs. Diaz, you don't qualify for welfare because you aren't taking advantage of all financial resources at your disposal." <----there will be conservatives arguing this if organs are promoted as a legal tender and a personal resource.

    Profiting from organ donation will only discourage insurance companies from seeking preventative treatments for kidney disease (like they need help MINIMIZING incentive ). Insurance and pharmaceutical companies already make a mint keeping people alive rather than making people well and this measure will only metastasize this conflict of interest.

    Insurance companies will be like car dealerships trying to make the sale if they can profit from the transplant, so risks will be downplayed. They're not philanthropists, they want their cut. Period.

    It's bad enough we have drug commercials encouraging consumers to tell their doctors what to prescribe them! Now we can have organ sales middlemen squeezing their ads between Pristiq and National Corn Growers Association tv spots. Kidney sales will be given the same consideration (if not elevated status) as drug therapies, dietary changes, and financial investments. Failing business owners, avid entrepeneurs, and others saddled with financial obstacles will have less scrupulous financial advisers standing by, eager to help them with their newfound sum.
    And this is all stuff that a naive 21-year old needs to concern themselves? These sound like social concerns, not medical concerns.

    Many people are not aware that kidney donations are not a lifetime cure for the recipient, they are a temporary fix --10 years at best according to this author. Factor in the number of recipients needing kidneys and their average lifetime expectancy and the math gets ugly. And you can bet insurance companies, drug companies (which will profit enormously from the need to medicate patients daily for life to prevent organ rejection), and organ purchasing interest groups will downplay this figure or alter it if they can manipulate statistics and studies to fuel the trade.
    Then tell the donor/seller that it's not a permanent solution. Whew, that was hard!

    If it's that pointless, then we should stop living people from donating kidneys, too.

    And while a second kidney may enlarge to compensate partially for the missing one, it will not completely compensate for it, thus putting the donor at greater risk for kidney failure themselves. This is what we call a feedback loop. Should an unexpected illness befall them, they no longer have a back up kidney. --Not to mention their reduced capacity for filtering toxins and alcohol... it will catch up with them by putting extra wear on other organs putting them at risk for other kinds of illness.
    To what extent? Does anyone even know? What is the reduced life expectancy for someone who has donated a kidney?

    The body is a delicate ecosystem --organs do not live in a vacuum.
    I would hope not, otherwise they would probably explode.

    Damaging or eliminating one affects them all. We don't have duplicate organs to 1) keep us alive, WHILE 2) funding our lifestyles; they are there for a purpose. They're not like those Buy1, Get1 Free Deodorant packs you get at Shoprite and treating them like they are "bonus" will diminish the public's consciousness of their inherent value.
    To what extent does this affect other organs? Does anyone know?

    Kidney donation is not like blood or plasma donation --it is not renewable! And what happens if insurances reject or raise premiums for sellers? As far as I'm aware, they can't do this for donors, but a seller is a voluntary participant and this changes the rules. I have no doubt they'll push hard for the right to do it.
    This sounds like something people need to consider when making their decision. Perhaps it would be a zero-sum game, economically, for the seller.

    We are far better off not looking in this direction at all and focusing on growing functional organs. The technology is in the works now. We do not need to entertain dystopic alternatives. I really don't believe it'll come to this... so long as we can prevent profiteers from throwing all caution to the wind.
    First of all, who said anything about "profiteers" getting involved? What if non-profit transplant organizations handled the compensation? Why is it that whenever someone mentions legalizing something that is currently prohibited, the opposition starts bringing up doomsday scenarios where we enter some sort of free-for-all capitalistic nightmare? If it's properly regulated, that doesn't need to happen.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  8. #18

    Default

    How prescient, surgical risks are still risks eh?

    Patient died after attempt to remove wrong organ

    The inquest then heard how the surgeon felt what he believed was Mrs Francis's kidney and pulled down sharply, a normal procedure for organ removal.

    But, the coroner was told, the anaesthetist immediately reported a fall in the patient's blood pressure. Mr Carter said he immediately realised he had pulled on the liver and, as a result, had torn the organ.

    Two senior surgeons were called to the scene and efforts were made to save Mrs Francis, but they were unsuccessful.
    "The purpose of life is to be defeated by greater and greater things." - Rainer Maria Rilke

  9. #19
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iwakar View Post
    How prescient, surgical risks are still risks eh?

    Patient died after attempt to remove wrong organ
    You're making a case for outlawing all organ transplants from living people, not just transplants where people are paid.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  10. #20
    RETIRED CzeCze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    GONE
    Posts
    9,051

    Default

    I'd be interested to see what he thinks post donorship when he's 31, 41, etc. This sounds ageist but I can't help but think the idealism and invincible feeling of youth is influencing his outlook.

    Also, doubtful a strings-free 'donorship' model would spring up. The kind of thing the op-ed author speaks of is most like bone marrow donorship in that it's invasive and for free and there is already trouble getting enough donors, especially people of certain ethnic backgrounds to donate. And technically as a donor you will never be lacking in bone marrow afterwards and can donate again.

    With surrogacy I think it's not an apt parallel as motherhood/pregnancy/birth/children already have a lot of emotional and social connotation with them which motivates some women to become 'super charitable' and become surrogates. They feel an an immense feeling of personal satisfaction/fulfillment and no small amount of distaste?/scorn? at the thought of getting paid for it. To be paid would 'cheapen' the experience for everyone. It's a special case that doesn't translate for organ donation in general, not even egg donorship where it's a blind process and you can distance yourself psychologically and socially from the eventual results of what you're doing. Further, surrogacy entails a close relationship and a feeling of mutual comfort between between both parties. It seems from documentaries (:P) most surrogates and the families who use surrogates are from similar racial and socio-economic backgrounds (white and lower middle to middle class)

    Buuut yeah, I can only see something terrible like the future shown in "Repo Men", rashes of organ theft like a new urban legend, or what already goes on in third world countries of poor people selling body parts for short term cash.

    I think a more apt and less sensational op-ed would have been one encouraging people to become organ donors on their driver's licenses. You might want to hold onto everything when you're alive, but afterwards someone else can use them. The gist I got from the Op-Ed is that people should re-examine the concept of organ donorship. An earlier NY Times article showed only 38% of American drivers are registered for organ donorship and the reasons why:

    http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/0...t-organ-donor/

    Maybe my Ne is over-pinging itself but I think there should be an thread on the TV show "I Cloned My Pet" as a follow up to this one...
    “If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.” ― Oscar Wilde

    "I'm outtie 5000" ― Romulux

    Johari/Nohari

Similar Threads

  1. Ultimate F vs T decision... To stay with friends or not?
    By Snow Turtle in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-19-2009, 07:47 PM
  2. OK to Reveal Team's Type Or Not?
    By ENFJ in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-19-2007, 06:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO