Biology Debate Throwdown

[SCIGENIUS]

Here, you guys can debate over this: Is transplantion(of organs) really ethical?

[the tree]

Yes, yes it is.

 

(you wanna give us more to go on?)

[SCIGENIUS]

Fine, do you believe that the transplantation method is unethical?

[bob000555]

Is there any reson taking from the dead ,with their permission, to save the living would be unethical?

[SCIGENIUS]

Yeah, considering that half the population is living with an organ that their bodies could reject at any point.

[insane_alien]

nope, i signed up as an organ donor. after i'm dead they can do whatever the hell they like with the bits leftover. i won't need them any more

[SCIGENIUS]

What if doctors can't use the organs because they can't find a recipient with your blood type? Do the doctors just let the organs rot?

[the tree]

Fine, do you believe that the transplantation method is unethical?

That's a bit vauge, there are different methods for transplanting different organs.

And to be honest, I don't see how any method could be more or less ethical than other, choosing a method is generally just selecting the most efficient/convenient means to the same end.

Yeah, considering that half the population is living with an organ that their bodies could reject at any point.

You got a source for that?

What if doctors can't use the organs because they can't find a recipient with your blood type? Do the doctors just let the organs rot?

Well, yes, pretty much, sometimes it'll get used for research. Transplants aren't always possible but that doesn't affect the ethical implications of when they are.

[SCIGENIUS]

My friend Elizabeth, has a transplanted kidney. Her body almost rejected it.

[insane_alien]

well if they are left to rot in the body they don't stand a chance of helping anyone. if they are transplanted then the could extend someones life by a couple years possibly decades with new anti rejection drugs.

[SCIGENIUS]

Yes, I do have a source for that information, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. The Post Gazette actually took the information from some national organ transplantion foundation.

 

Yeah, what if the organ they were given was transplanted previously into someone else, but that person's body rejected it, would the organ be able to be retransplanted?

[bob000555]

What if doctors can't use the organs because they can't find a recipient with your blood type? Do the doctors just let the organs rot?

Is that why the list of people needing an organ is so long? most people stay on the list for years before the get to the top.

edit: dont doble post.

[SCIGENIUS]

I guess, I don't know

 

Another debatable question: Is cloning ethically right?

[the tree]

Yes, I do have a source for that information, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. The Post Gazette actually took the information from some national organ transplantion foundation.

Some foundation? Have you been in a debate before?

Another debatable question: Is cloning ethically right?

Pretty much not a debatable question because the word "cloning" covers so many things.

[ecoli]

Another debatable question: Is cloning ethically right?

don't shift gears so quickly. At SFN, we like to try and keep 1 topic per thread as a guideline.

 

As for organ rejection: isn't it better to have a chance an organ will be rejected rather than no organ at all?

[bob000555]

What if doctors can't use the organs because they can't find a recipient with your blood type? Do the doctors just let the organs rot?

88,000 people are wating for organs none will go to waste http://www.organtransplants.org/understanding/unos/

SCIGENIUS: thats 2 doble posts i one topic!

[SCIGENIUS]

sorry guys, double posting, my fault.

[carol]

I can't think of a single reason why transplantation of organs should be considered unethical. When a person dies, his body will just return to dust. So, instead of letting it go to waste, why not let somebody make use of its parts.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

This is silly.

 

Scigenius, please elaborate on your replies, and stick to one topic per thread.

[Glider]

The possibility of rejection is not an ethical question, it's a medical problem.

 

It would be an ethical question of the possibility of rejection was not revealed to the patient prior to transplant, or if there were a better alternative that was being withheld.

 

A real ethical issue surrounding organ transplant is the idea of selling organs (i.e. placing monetary value on them).

[Sequence]

Nothing wrong with it, I'm sixteen and I'm a donor. I don't need the heart for anything if I'm dead. and if someone else can live, thats great. If they can't use it for a transplant, use it in research to teach the next generation of surgeons.

[ParanoiA]

Well this isn't much fun, so let me throw a wrench in the gears...

 

I can see an ethical issue because those parts make me. If I'm dead, I still want my parts, because no one knows what happens when we die. What if we need them for the next level of existence? You could be killing people in their next life cycle before they even get started because you're robbing parts they need.

[SCIGENIUS]

Finally! ParanoiA, why do you agree with me?

[the tree]

If I'm dead, I still want my parts,

That's where the "donor" bit comes in. Currently organs are not taken with the prior consent of their previous owner (or parental consent).

What if we need them for the next level of existence?

That is a pretty big "what if", on the same level why don't we bury people with all their possessions?

Finally! ParanoiA, why do you agree with me?

He is a agreeing with you? In what sense? You haven't yet presented an argument, an opinion, a hypothesis, a relevant statement... what is there to agree with? As for why, as best I can tell, he is playing Devil's Advocate.

[ParanoiA]

Finally! ParanoiA, why do you agree with me?

 

I don't. Just trying to apply some critical thinking to the thread since everyone seems to be agreeing with each other. I don't know really how thought out it is, but I like to challenge things at their core. If what you believe is really true, then it should prevail. If you haven't questioned everything you believe every few years, then you're long overdue. To me, it starts with absurdity like this...

 

That's where the "donor" bit comes in. Currently organs are not taken with the prior consent of their previous owner (or parental consent).

 

But isn't there a moral distinction between giving consent when all of the consequences are known or not known? If I don't know about the spaghetti monster being the supreme god over all gods and that he requires everyone in the next level of existence to have both kidneys or else I burn for eternity in molten hot spaghetti sauce, then I'm not making an educated decision.

 

That is a pretty big "what if", on the same level why don't we bury people with all their possessions?

 

Finally! the tree, why do you agree with me?

 

Just kidding. I'm not even sure I can really play devil's advocate on this one. My heart just isn't in it...