Ok the greater good... for the benefit of the species / community on a wider scale than just your own existing. Why would you not help someone else when there is no detriment to yourself? It seems perverse to me that most people would willingly push another person out of the way of a car in the street, saving their life but not give them a kidney when it is no longer any use to themselves. I guess I am talking about altruistic acts, which don't seem to be in vogue at the moment
Supercillious - now altruistic - ( thanks BSG )- that was a really selfless act of kindness from you to introduce a pretty word ! I did say that I would keep you entertained & educated- now it seems that some of you are beginning to learn.
I think some people don't mind what happens when they are gone but have difficulty coming to terms with a loved one being cut up after death .... I think people should discuss these issues & give informed consent rather than it being taken for granted that it is ok
But it can work the other way. You can still have the discussion but the opt out arrangement makes it easier for people to donate and therefore more lives can be saved.
So while we continue to allow the state to own our lives, what about the starving people on this planet that are dying in every second that it takes me to type this post. So how does that fit with the greater good? With the greatest of respect was George Best for the greater good? How is the NHS going to afford all these assumed additional transplants, so will that take precedent for the greater good? How long before a serious car crash victim is more eyed as the next ideal meat transplant for the greater good? With all my drinking and smoking I best opt out for the greater good! Just give me a big morphine fix when my time comes, at least I can die happy.
Those who do not favour 'automatic' organ retrieval may be missing a few points. Suitable organs are only likely to come from 'younger' victims. Not wishing to be rude, brb - but neither you or I are likely to have 'suitable' organs for surgery. ( I know we're far from ancient - so don't get all mopey on me ). Viable organs will be sourced from those who die young(er). Viability will be affected if the 'donor' had underlying health problems that would preclude the transplant of various organs. Suitable donors will be fewer than maybe we would expect..... and usually the family of the unwitting donor can draw some comfort from the fact that their loved one has benefited others etc. Some people will say that organ retrieval, at times seem to be a rushed procedure - the potential 'victim' might actually still be alive whilst the question is discussed. But in these situations, or when the victim has suffered an unexpected, premature death, organs need to be retrieved quickly for them to be of any use. I do appreciate the argument concerning principles involved - I am a great advocate of principles - but I do not think that 'automatic' organ retrieval is particularly high in the list of bad government policies.
Some very good points well articulated. I suppose a lot of my own personal feelings involve the latter of your post, that being 'principles'. A lot of various one's have been well voiced by me. Sadly you cannot always portray examples to arguments because somethings have to remain private. We all have our experiences in life and our own words of wisdom, which may or may not form some foundation of our principles. The government and media as always only paint a picture that suits the cause they strive to achieve, however, let's just say are we forgetting about living donors and difficult choices. Every decision, every rule will be the creator of a new one. How long...several decades, a century, before living donors are also required by state to give up organs. The human race knows no bounds unless it has principles.
Yes there are still many injustices in the world, but any individual's sphere of influence is tiny in a global scale, but that should not make the act itself pointless. On a side note I find the choice of George Best somewhat ironic. You claim that he wasn't for the greater good, a term which I am regretting using as it doesn't really explain what I meant, for his drinking, smoking, debauchery etc. and yet these are the freedoms that so many people hold dear. If the government tried to stop these activities many would call foul but yet if these were banned most would see the benefits to society. Could these very freedoms be causing some of the ills that we lament? If so would greater state control be better for everyone?
Now we are treading on dangerous ground, lets ban football supporters travelling to grounds and polluting the world with C02, lets make 70 years the maximum age for living as after that people become a drain on resources, children born with serious disability what's the point. I'm sorry BSG but your world is one that I don't want to share, once those kind of powers start when will they end. And don't say it can't happen they said the same about Hitler and his perfect race.
Grumpy, this is not my world, I was simply paraphrasing the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes' work "Leviathan". Of course in Hobbes' world the state was run by a benevolent leader who only did the best for the community, so your concerns would not apply. But of course we don't live in Hobbes' utopia and history shows that when people get power without controls this can go awry. I was simply making the opposite view to brb's infringement of freedoms case and the paradox of freedom i.e. we live in a society where we need rules to be able to live freely. Without a state there would be anarchy but too much control leads to dictatorship, the impossible trick is to find the happy medium ps when the season start I promise to be less preachy!
BSG, it might not be your world but the argument remains the same. "a benevolent leader who only did the best for the community" but who's opinion of the best? Everyone must work to contribute to the well being of the community. seems the best for the community but what happens to those who don't work. Every person who has a spare room must take in homeless people. seems the best for the community but what happens to those who refuse. All private wealth to be confiscated by the state for the benefit of the community. seems best for the community but would everyone agree. Sorry but even a benevolent leader could not work for the benefit of the community without upsetting the community he tries to help.
I have just done a very quick and brief piece of research on donations and in this case highlight kidneys... Only one in four of kidney transplants are from living donors. Yet they have a higher percentage of success rate than from people that have died. These facts come from NHSBT - 2009-10. That increased to one third in 2011-12. The average wait time for an adult kidney in 2009-10 was 1,110 days. Although a kidney transplant only lasts for 10-15 years. So surely another solution that the government and media have overlooked is that all those people that think the opposite to me, can frequent a hospital near them soon and ask to be a non-directed altruistic kidney donor. Don't worry though BSG, studies have shown that accepted donors live longer than the average population. Obviously I will sit back in awe as I know you will be doing it for the greater good.
Thanks chaps ( and Minxy ) for some serious stuff in this thread - but let's lighten the mood - Another one of my 'hates' When you go to the petrol station - have you tried to purchase EXACTLY two litres of fuel ( it's the standard minimum amount you MUST buy ! ) - and how do you pay for that quantity ? ...... Why the ( stupid) question ? Because, for example, with the price of unleaded at £ 1.33.9p per litre, how do you give £ 2.67(.8p) ? - you have to buy a minimum of £ 2.68 of fuel ! Where else in every day retail is a commodity sold in this fashion ? being forced to buy more than you might want .... OK ... I realise that occurs everywhere - but I will credit you with knowing what I mean - otherwise I will post, in FULL detail, the theory of thermo-dynamics as it relates to draughts.... anyway - and why do you never see the price end in £ x.xx.1p ? It's just a marketing gimmick.... and let's face it - who doesn't try to round UP the transaction to the nearest £ or 50p -- all the easier for banking purposes. Another thing that doesn't fool me - although it seems to work well with people of a particular gender - is the £ x.99p, especially if the £x is £9 or £19 ( i.e. a penny short of £10 or £20 ). I admire the prices that are concise, clear and not trying to fool you into thinking that the actual price isn't too bad................ It's £ 1.34 ! a litre.
Exactly 8 years, so it seems ! 7.7.2005. 52 Dead. It was in this country. London. Bombings. Nothing in the BBC's news on their official website. Nothing on the BBC television news. The memory of the 52 innocent lives obviously NOW means nothing..... I wonder what will happen on 11th., September - Nothing ? We will be bombarded with Andy Murray - all day - right up to the point when he loses (at which time he stops being British - and returns to being a Scottish loser ) - it would have been a bit respectful if there was the tiniest morsel of mention of the tragic events in our history - perhaps not any full blown coverage that the US will give to their tragedy - but some small dignified mention. edit - I sent this post to Murray - by way of motivation - it obviously worked - well done. I don't suppose there'll be any chance of anything else in the news for another 77 years. further edit - Did you see how much effort Alex Salmond put into waving the flag of St.Andrew ( I don't mean Andrew Murray ) - clearly he wanted the world to know that Murray is Scottish - not British.
Ok not that I want to keep going back to this but I'll just answer a few point. Grumpy you have seemed to assume that any powerful state will be a totalitarian super government in keeping with 1984 or a Brave New World. A strong state doesn't mean that this is a case it simply means that the government will have strong controls over certain areas, wouldn't we all be in a better position if the government had stronger control over the banks in the last few years. As I said before Hobbes' ideal was purely philosophical and not a blue print for a actual government. However he does talk about the government promoting what we probably see as universally good concepts, such as equality, justice and fairness, which we can assume is the greater good. Of course there are likely to be people who don't conform or break the laws and one would imagine that these people will be treated within the law as they are done currently, so the death squads and gulags you imagine probably wouldn't occur. brb we started by talking about donating organs after passing away as opposed to live donations. Yes live donation would be the altruistic dreams, but that has to be offset against the potential "damage" to the donor and the donor's family, while a donation after death has very few donation (and none to the donor). Whilst I may have a donor card, I think I would think twice about a live donation unless it was a close family member. It doesn't make me a bad person the way not having a donor card makes anybody a bad person but I would suggest that world would be a better place if more people signed up to donations and if the opt out issue makes this more likely then I personally support it.
I'm sure you acknowledge the date coincidence in Abu Qatada's deportation. As for the BBC, well my voice on the media of our country is well documented. I can remember one time being in another site and being virtually a soul voice about the licence fee and every issue I have with the BBC. Everyone telling me all about our great institute. 'Now then, now then', 'Guys and gals'. "How's about that, then?" - Then everyone fell silent.
My comment for live donors referred to kidneys. So I'm somewhat lost on this potential damage to the live donor and their family? Live kidney donation is regarded as highly safe.
