Death - should the departed's family have an intrinsic right to the body?

[Umbran]

That is a slippery slop type argument.

Only to a degree. The bad form of slippery slope is when you say that you will certainly slide down the slope, without giving rationale for how or why.

I am merely saying I am not comfortable with the precedent.

And besides, it is already done with estate taxes.

Estate taxes aren't a flat commandeering of assets - they are a tax, and the estate gets to choose what gets liquidated to pay them, which keeps it from being an imposition on property rights. And they don't generally apply to assets transferred to your spouse, and the Federal version doesn't apply if your estate is under $5+ million dollars.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If you do not want to give your organs, just sign the card and it will be done. It will solve many health problems due to lack of available organs. Health is a social issue and everyone would get the opportunity to contribute to the solution.

The exact same argument works in reverse: if you do want to give your organs, just sign the card and it will be done. Everyone already has the opportunity to contribute to the solution.

Problem here with opt-out: not everyone has or is even eligible to have "the card" in question. (In the USA, it is usually part of the driver's license or state-issue ID card.) Die without the relevant ID, a child not in the presence of guardians, or if you are somehow not immediately identifiable, etc., and the state can harvest your organs- remember, time is critical, so the state will be in a hurry.

If this is against your faith or you are not a resident of the country, the state has just interfered with your religious practices at a VERY key point or has harvested organs from someone who didn't have a say at all in the decision.

Cue the massive lawsuits.

 

[Janx]

Only to a degree. The bad form of slippery slope is when you say that you will certainly slide down the slope, without giving rationale for how or why.

I've recently heard it described as "One man's slipper slope is another man's progress"

I really hate the "slippery slope" objection being used to anything. it's a sloppy argument for not taking action. The point of checks and balances and government and voting and all that crap is to take a step in a direction, and if it don't work out, back up. And to say no, if the next step is too far.

I realize Common Sense ain't all that common, but those of us who have it can usually see a path of doing something, without going too far.

 

[Umbran]

I really hate the "slippery slope" objection being used to anything. it's a sloppy argument for not taking action.

Sometimes, it can be. But let us be clear - recognizing the possible unintended consequences of an action is not "sloppy". It is the opposite of sloppy. And having nasty unintended consequences is a very good reason to not take an action.

 

[tomBitonti]

I think a problem here is slope being steep (or, equivalently, there are strong forces which might push us down it), regardless of whether it is slippery. And, increases in medical technology have been making the slope steeper, the forces stronger, by making more types of transplants feasible.

Organs for transplants are (apparently) in high demand. A quick look for statistics finds this, but I worry about bias: http://donatelife.net/statistics/. Still, I can believe that the presentation is largely true and there are many more candidates than donors available.

This is the sort of information which I typically come across in this space:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/24/illegal-organ-trafficking_n_244686.html

Also:

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...ing-organs-would-create-an-economic-class-war

And:

http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Faculty/Hansmanntheeconomicsandethics.pdf

From what I've read, this is an area subject to strong disagreements, with a very predictable alignments of the argument for and against. The space seems ... unstable, with arguments very likely to heat up.

---

Organ harvesting is a strong trope in science fiction. See, for example, "The Patchwork Girl", by Niven: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Patchwork_Girl.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Umbran]

Organ harvesting is a strong trope in science fiction. See, for example, "The Patchwork Girl", by Niven: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Patchwork_Girl.

It was a thing, for Niven. See also, "The Jigsaw Man" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jigsaw_Man

 

[Janx]

Sometimes, it can be. But let us be clear - recognizing the possible unintended consequences of an action is not "sloppy". It is the opposite of sloppy. And having nasty unintended consequences is a very good reason to not take an action.

those are 2 different things.

"Don't do X, because it will have the following unintended consequence" is specific, logical and raises a risk/problem to be addressed.

"Don't do X, because later, they will come back and do Y on the grounds that if X was good, Y must also be good" is stonewalling and resisting change for the paranoia that they'll go farther, rather than society will prevent going too far.

Of course there are obvious exceptions (OCTAOE as abbreviated by Scott Adams)

But things like the Gun Show Loop Hole (not doing background checks for buying a gun at a gun show) never gets addressed because "that's a slippery slope to taking away my guns"

Never mind that a gun check takes 10-20 minutes in Texas (bought my S&W SD9 in less than half an hour on a friday evening at a gun shop). It's trivial and quick nowadays.

Now if somebody raised an unintended consequence issue with closing that GSLH, that's a fine discussion. That ain't the slippery slope argument we get down here.

 

[Janx]

I think a problem here is slope being steep (or, equivalently, there are strong forces which might push us down it), regardless of whether it is slippery. And, increases in medical technology have been making the slope steeper, the forces stronger, by making more types of transplants feasible.

Organs for transplants are (apparently) in high demand. A quick look for statistics finds this, but I worry about bias: http://donatelife.net/statistics/. Still, I can believe that the presentation is largely true and there are many more candidates than donors available.

Whatever happened to technology like the artificial heart (Jarvic's pimping pills on TV now)? Seems like our tech level has risen, and work on improving artificial parts hasn't been talked about.

 

[tomBitonti]

Whatever happened to technology like the artificial heart (Jarvic's pimping pills on TV now)? Seems like our tech level has risen, and work on improving artificial parts hasn't been talked about.

I wondered about that. Today, there seems to be increasing demand for transplant organs. But later, we may be able to grow replacement organs. (I've seen some articles on building organs, starting from a scaffolding, and talking about issues in having secondary tissues, like blood vessels, grow properly.) Or do better repairs. Or manufacture artificial replacements. The tide may turn and decrease demand. Technology won't push this in just one direction.

Working out the net effect might be hard: We learn enough to make replacements possible in one area, but get good enough to do transplants in two new areas.

I wonder though, about non-vital organs. If a football player can put his health at risk (knees, head, &etc) for a hefty salary, should I be able to sell one of my knee joints for a million dollars? For 10 million? Would I be willing to sell a cornea for a million dollars?

The problem, seems to me, is that the million dollar price would be an exception, with cases involving vital organs and lower prices being much more common. Using software contracting as a guide, there would be a lot of middle men taking a cut of the value of a donated organ, and lots of folks taken advantage of.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Umbran]

"Don't do X, because later, they will come back and do Y on the grounds that if X was good, Y must also be good" is stonewalling and resisting change for the paranoia that they'll go farther, rather than society will prevent going too far.

You say I'm stonewalling. I say you're passing the buck.

Sometimes, the time to resist going farther is *now*, rather than depending on "society" to prevent abuse and unforeseen consequences later on.