A debate

[Twilight]

We have another debate - and again, we have the slightly harder side. My team and I were wondering if anyone here had any ideas?

 

The motion is that "Organ Donations should be prioritised to those who have had a healthy lifestyle."

We're negating. That is - we're saying that we should give organs to those who need them the most and NOT to those who lead "healthy lifestyles"

 

We're thinking of arguing it from a slightly moralistic perspective. Does anyone have any ideas at all?

[Mokele]

That society shouldn't act as a moral judge?

 

Also, you could argue that, since those with unhealthy lifestyles will be more likely to need the organs (and such surgery isn't exactly a walk in the park), they're already paying for their choices (and paying through the nose, in the US), from a statistical POV. Those who choose to be unhealthy have an increased chance of needing such help, and those who choose to be healthy have a decreased risk. Why lump additional punishment on top of the illness itself?

 

Mokele

[Bettina]

We have another debate - and again' date=' we have the slightly harder side. My team and I were wondering if anyone here had any ideas?

 

The motion is that "Organ Donations should be prioritised to those who have had a healthy lifestyle."

We're negating. That is - we're saying that we should give organs to those who need them the most and NOT to those who lead "healthy lifestyles"

 

We're thinking of arguing it from a slightly moralistic perspective. Does anyone have any ideas at all?[/quote']

 

Yes, I do....

I think your side is the correct side to be on. The ones that lead an unhealthy lifestyle usually have risk factors that make them a poor candidate already. A person with aids or drug burnout may be considered poor risks.

 

I also favor.......and this may get me in trouble.......young kids having a priority over adults for transplants.

 

Bettina

 

Edit....I may also add that any decision requires the doctor to play god.

[Phi for All]

Who determines what is healthy? Is it the low-fat folks or the low-carb folks or the 2-hours in the gym per day folks? I know many folks who eat according to the food groups triangle and exercise moderately and are in terrible shape. If someone eats at restaurants at every meal (thereby helping the economy) and exercises regularly but still ends up needing a kidney, is his diet going to be held against him? Are we assuming that everyone who needs a new organ abused the old one? Is the person who eats well and exercises regularly but drinks to excess going to be denied a new liver if one is available? If any prioritizing is to be done, it should be by age alone, as anything else is arbitrary and morally judgemental.

[Enski]

The statistical POV

 

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_obe

 

Statistically it is shown that over 30% of the Population is obese and accordingly in that same year *(2000) America had topped the world list of deaths by obese related causes , and this isn't the least of it , at the moment obesity is ever becoming more prevalent in our country . Heart Disease is a major cause contributing to these deaths and one of the most in demanding organs . . . . . .

 

(I think 30%> obesity is enough to make a strong point for heart disease related causes .)

 

Then you could probaly argument from the fact that society and it's contribution to the population becoming more vulnerable to health risks is a result of the lack of education to encourage people becoming healthier .

 

The same thing can goto smoking related causes , it's not the peoples fault for why they are addicted and why they have lung problems . . . .

 

Basically try and make it not look like the people are responsible for organ problems .

Then point some fingers as to the reasons why , lack of education the fast foods and governments are providing about heart disease , an addictive drug that destroys peoples lungs & kills people being sold to the public , and state that society needs to be doing more to help the public become more healthier than acting or deliberating out against them .

 

If anyone basically mentions the sick don't deserve to be treated equally as anyone else , then a strong rebuttle would be to raise is the oath of hippocrates

(basically , no matter who the person is or what they have done , the sick need help , as it would be a violation or compromise of professional integrity ( and to the oath of hippocrates) to deliberate a moral judgement against a person who is sick )

 

http://www.med.umich.edu/irbmed/ethics/hippocratic/hippocratic.html

 

This is just a suggestion with some ideas which maybe viable to your support

[Mokele]

Statistically it is shown that over 30% of the Population is obese

 

Yes, but it's the BMI, which is a worthless method of evaluation. Aside from not taking build or muscle mass into account, it ignores basical laws of geometry as they apply to biology. Simply put, if I suddenly grow to twice my current size, but keep my proportions, I'd be twice as tall, but 8 times as heavy (mass increases cubicly with respect to linear dimensions). If I kept the same BMI, though, I'd be 4 times as heavy.

 

Basically, the BMI has this intrinsic flaw, and as a result, I definitely don't trust it, nor any statistics based on it. I prefer using things like % body fat as metrics of obesity.

 

Mokele

[ioana]

so those who have an unhealthy lifestyle aren't to be blamed?

[blike]

Wow, what a great topic. I'd like to see a debate about it here...

[Mart]

ioana wrote

so those who have an unhealthy lifestyle aren't to be blamed?

If they believe that they are unhealthy and they believe that they have some responsibility for their unhealthy state then maybe they will want to do something about it? Using blame as a lever may be counter-productive.

[Mokele]

so those who have an unhealthy lifestyle aren't to be blamed?

 

I, personally, just see that as pointlessly excessive. If they have an unhealthy lifestyle, they'll suffer the consequences sooner or later. Why add more consequences on top of that?

 

On the other hand, I can see the other side's point. Why should someone who lost an organ to accident or disease be forced to wait their turn behind people who simply abused what they had.

 

Mokele

[ioana]

k, here are some questions a few people have asked me about this topic, i really have no idea what the answers could be....

would people who have an unheathy lifestyle and have been given an organ be more likely to carry on an unhealthy lifestyle? even if they do does it matter?

shouln't it be survival of the fittest, i.e weeding out those who are unhealthy?

and if you don't prioritise on healthy lifestyle, how do you judge who recieves an organ? someone pointed out age, but are there any other methods?