Current Events > mother learns her childs grave is empty, possibly organ harvested by UK doctors

(+) Yeah! (+)

averagejoel posted...

my point still stands: using the organs for medical research does more good than using them for meat

how can you logically assert that a starving person who would die without food being fed is less good than ambiguous research?
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

1. eating them for meat actually keeps people alive
2. donating organs for research only has potential save a life, it might not even save any life
3. like I said, relevant in that you thought they were using these for transplants and not putting them in storage

still, if eating a dead person saves someones life and prevents them from dying

how can you say that is "less good"

that is illogical

have you considered the fact that it's possible to eat meat that doesn't come from humans
---

ThePrinceFish posted...

Offworlder1 posted...

There is a big leap from using organs or skin to save someone else's life, and people eatting people.

I think your trolling now with trying to pass off cannibalism as acceptable.

@darkphoenix181

If people stealing corpses to harvest organs is cool to save lives, why isn't shipping preserved corpses to areas decimated by famine?

Because if we were actually gonna help those starving people we could just send them all the actual food that gets thrown out in supermarkets every day
---

averagejoel posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

1. eating them for meat actually keeps people alive
2. donating organs for research only has potential save a life, it might not even save any life
3. like I said, relevant in that you thought they were using these for transplants and not putting them in storage

still, if eating a dead person saves someones life and prevents them from dying

how can you say that is "less good"

that is illogical

have you considered the fact that it's possible to eat meat that doesn't come from humans

so why are these people starving?

you said there was a distribution problem

and yet someone near them died and could be eaten

but according to you there is animal meat near them? they just not smart enough to eat it?
---

Butchering human corpses for meat to distribute them as food requires an extra step: butchering the corpses. Food already exists that's both easier to process and access. Why don't you work on distributing existing resources, and then once you've solved that problem, if it's still not enough food, we can talk about cannibalism.
---

It's barbaric

wait what?
---

honestly, organ donation shouldn't even be opt-in or opt-out. it really ought to be the law. it is one of the few areas where supply of a critical resource is a true life-or-death problem for people. we've developed hundreds of tools to work around this scarcity, but it'd all be moot if we simply stopped supporting the impulse people had to oppose the 'desecration' of their loved ones' bodies behind closed doors after death to save lives of others. a body used for organ donation is still viable for open-casket funerals, so this doesn't even pose an issue for funeral rites.

it's strictly an 'icky' reaction people have.

what makes the food argument as a counter-point idiotic is that supply has never been the issue with hunger, but rather distribution and interference with local power players who create artificial scarcities for political power.

until we change the law, though, doctors should follow it. i understand why they might not and the OP story is terrible, but it's all symptomatic of a broken law that enshrines a foolish superstition.
---

Darkman124 posted...

what makes the food argument as a counter-point idiotic is that supply has never been the issue with hunger, but rather distribution and interference with local power players who create artificial scarcities for political power.

incorrect

because if their was no side effect from cannibalism then it simply is also

strictly an 'icky' reaction people have.

and that is why the example is so good, it shows a strange hypocrisy

sure, you could fix distribution, but if in the meantime you could save starving people by eating corpses, why wouldn't you? (and distribution isn't easily solved now is it)

the answer is the same reason you berate those who do not want to desecrate their dead for organ harvesting

and if it is not, then please explain
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

sure, you could fix distribution, but if in the meantime you could save starving people by eating corpses, why wouldn't you? (

reality check

in real world scenarios where people are starving (because local strongmen are restricting access to food), they DO eat corpses.

there is a supply problem with organs. there is not a supply problem with food. full stop.
---

What the hell, that's barbaric.

Darkman124 posted...

honestly, organ donation shouldn't even be opt-in or opt-out. it really ought to be the law. it is one of the few areas where supply of a critical resource is a true life-or-death problem for people. we've developed hundreds of tools to work around this scarcity, but it'd all be moot if we simply stopped supporting the impulse people had to oppose the 'desecration' of their loved ones' bodies behind closed doors after death to save lives of others. a body used for organ donation is still viable for open-casket funerals, so this doesn't even pose an issue for funeral rites.

it's strictly an 'icky' reaction people have.

what makes the food argument as a counter-point idiotic is that supply has never been the issue with hunger, but rather distribution and interference with local power players who create artificial scarcities for political power.

until we change the law, though, doctors should follow it. i understand why they might not and the OP story is terrible, but it's all symptomatic of a broken law that enshrines a foolish superstition.

That's fucking disgusting. The family should decide if the organs are used or not.
---

did not expect bump after 2 days lol
---