Man Wants to Donate His Heart Before He Dies 456
Gary Phebus wants to donate his heart, lungs, and liver. The problem is he wants to donate them before he dies. Gary was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, better known as Lou Gehrig's disease, in 2008. Phebus says he'd like to be able to donate his organs before they deteriorate, and doesn't consider his request suicide because he's "dead anyway."
Bad idea to authorize this (Score:4, Interesting)
While this may seem like a good idea at first glance, the implications of accepting such requests could be terrifying:
One could imagine threats such as "If you don't give your heart to patient, we will murder your family one by one".
Desperate people with questionable morals will go to great length to save someone they care about.
Re:Kinda (Score:5, Interesting)
His death isn't even that imminent, consider that Stephen Hawking was diagnosed with ALS 47 years ago. An extreme case certainly (the longest survivor of any ALS patient), and I doubt that many people would have adapted to and overcome the psychological problems of the disease as well as Hawking has. But to say that ALS is 100% death sentence is obviously wrong.
Cool. (Score:1, Interesting)
Cool.
1. Find a surgical team who's morals weigh heavier than their career goals
2. Put the patient on liver dialysis and cardiopulmonary bypass
3. If he dies from complications of being on the machines, that doesn't count as suicide in my book.
Re:I fail to see what is newsworthy (Score:4, Interesting)
NY is considering making organ donation the default status in the state unless you opt out of it. I actually think that's a bridge too far -- the state ought not to assume that I want to give away my body parts without confirmation of this wish.
Re:No different... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm reminded of an episode of M*A*S*H where a soldier was brain-dead due to too much shrapnel turning his head to swiss cheese. The doctors were waiting for his body to fully die (all other functions were still going, but slowly fading) because they needed to harvest some tissue to save someone else. The soldier's friend, recovering from his own injuries, was upset that they were just waiting like vultures to butcher his friend.
The priest asked him if his friend was the kind of guy who would jump on a grenade to save his buddies. The soldier responded that, yes, his dying friend would have done that without a second thought. "Well," the priest said, "that's what he's doing right now." He died back on the battlefield, the rest of his body just hasn't figured it out yet.
This guy is facing a similar decision, he just wants to make it himself while he can before someone else has to make it for him.
Re:Kinda (Score:3, Interesting)
Go in wearing a non-resusc bracelet with a living will taped to your chest and just open a vein.
Out of consideration for the janitorial staff, I suggest bringing a bucket.
Re:Kinda (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Kinda (Score:3, Interesting)
not really.
That would be the case if *someone else* like the government owned them(howerver they do after you're dead in many countries for various reasons).
it could be considered similar to being a trustee or guardian of your own body which would neatly cover people being commited to mental hospitals when people are a danger to themselves.
You can still have rights under such a system.
"I own my body" argument leads to slavery (Score:5, Interesting)
If you don't own your body, then you are slave.
Then I guess we are all slaves because someone tried to put some THC into his body the other day and got arrested for doing so......
This is not logical. For instance, perhaps no one can possibly "own" a living human being. If you don't own yourself because no one can, then you aren't a slave. You can also "own" your body but still be a slave. You can have your liberty compromised without your body being compromised, for instance if someone threatens to take away your only livelihood unless you comply with their demands. You can also effectively be a slave simply through a lack of understanding of your own freedom.
I only ever see this 'you own your own body' argument from libertarians, who use it to justify absolute property rights. But these absolute property rights lead directly to 'voluntary' slavery: do what I say or starve to death because we own all the property and you do not. The entire premise is a simplistic piece of philosophical masturbation. I say, just as no one can (or should) own the air we breath, no one can (or should) own a human, including themselves. Libertarians want to make everything about ownership, but ownership is a simplistic and selfish concept. I would rather have society based on mutual agreement (which is the only thing society can be based on, really, I just want that explicitly acknowledged.)
Libertarians say, "You own your body, therefore you own the rewards of your work, therefore no one can tell you what to do with your property because that amounts to slavery." I like that conclusion, but why go to such convoluted lengths to reach it? It's much simpler like this: "You control the rewards of your work because everyone agrees that they would like to control the rewards of theirs." That's it. No need to invoke ownership or slavery at all, just agreement. And it leaves open the idea that we can and should limit property rights when they interfere with society. Sometimes, there are things that are more important than having total control over your own stored labor. For instance, pollution is an externality. That means that you should not be allowed to pollute your own property, because it imposes a cost on others. You should also not be allowed to buy up all the property and make everyone work for you or starve to death.
In short, "I own my own body and therefore should have absolute property rights" leads, inevitably, to slavery. "We agree to these sets of rights and obligations" does not necessarily lead to slavery.
Re:I fail to see what is newsworthy (Score:3, Interesting)
Educate them, give them the ability to make their own decision. I doubt that at age 4 and 6, either of them have that ability.
As a parent, you have a responsibility to impress upon your children at least some form of morality. That means imparting to them a set of beliefs and values that you have that may not be shared by other people.
I'm disturbed by this new trend that seems to promote the idea that it's not my right to raise my children in any way I see fit.