Asklemmy

43945 readers

985 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Should an altruistic organ donor be allowed to restrict their donation to a specific group of people? (e.g. women, gingers) (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by night_of_knee@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

61 comments fedilink hide all child comments

An extreme version of this is: What should the German health service do if someone says they are willing to donate a kidney as long as it doesn't go to a Jew?

On the one hand, nobody is forced to donate a kidney and by forbidding this we're making things worse for an innocent patient. On the other hand, it can be seen as the state sanctioning this kind of discrimination.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Kurt@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because living people who are sick might need those organs, which would otherwise just go to waste in your corpse. Also, it good to have a steady supply of organs from the deceased in order to avoid perverse and exploitative market situations.

[–] philluminati@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The very fact you raise the possibility of perverse or exploitative markets means there’s cause for mistrust in any donor arrangement. We live in a capitalist world and here you are devaluing my body for who, some CEO? Lisa Marie Presley inherits a catalogue of copyrighted content and revenue streams but my family can’t get a penny for saving someone’s life?

Organ donation is a wonderful thing and I understand why our systems are “opt-in” by default but why can’t I opt out, if I don’t trust society?

(Also: https://i.redd.it/9fiy6yw00mcb1.png)

[–] Kurt@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago

You're kind of talking about different things. Copyright should of course be abolished along with all private property. I don't rule out compensation to your estate for organs harvested after death and there should definitely be a public bounty/reward system to encourage the living to donate.

You shouldn't be able to opt out, or at least it should be very difficult to do so, because when you are dead what you have a say in that affects the living should be very limited, because those organs won't matter to you anymore, and because those organs might matter very much to living people. Whether you trust society or not doesn't matter anymore when you are dead.