Organ harvesting

[Jacob]

So, recently whilst on Twitter something POPPED up on my timeline that gave me some food for thought.

It was a letter apparently posted to the mother of a child with severe learning difficulties, basically saying 'TAKE YA KID OUT OF OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD! WE DON'T WANT HIM 'ERE!!'

Which I found pretty heinous, tbh.

However, the letter did raise a fairly good point, which I put to the guy who retweeted it to me...only to have him go batshit.

In it she says that they're severely mentally handicapped should be harvested for organs. That they're a drain of resources and not fit for anything else.

Now, say what you will, but that is true.

I cannot see any benefit from society by keeping what is effectively a sausage in clothes alive. There is none. Zero. Why do we do this? We do it because the parents are ridden with guilt, trying to force themselves to love something that lacks any real, human character. Lacks any personality in some cases.

They feel obligated. Maybe even emotionally tied.

But is this really a good reason to keep anything alive?

I can't, honestly, see why people have such an issue with this. I'm aware some are gonna say "GUD GOD! BT THE NAZZZZIS THORT THAT!" ...but that argument holds no water for me. They had some good ideas. This could be one of them.

Discuss.

[STM]

I refuse to believe you're this thick/disconnected from reality/thick/crazy/thick.

Did Mummy never hug you enough or something?

[Jacob]

It's not thick, it's logical.

Aside from the emotional issues ("OMG THEYR PPL 2") do you have any counter argument? Anything you can bring up and say "Oh, well, there's this! And this! They both benefit society and make us grow and blossom and it's just perfect!!" ?

[Varrok]

You wouldn't say that if you were mentally handicapped yourself! obviously

[STM]

It's not thick, it's logical.

Aside from the emotional issues ("OMG THEYR PPL 2") do you have any counter argument? Anything you can bring up and say "Oh, well, there's this! And this! They both benefit society and make us grow and blossom and it's just perfect!!" ?

It may be logical. We are not computers however, and life is not for the pursuit of logic, but for the pursuit of personal happiness. That's my argument.

[Jacob]

"It may be logical. We are not computers however"

That's a fair point.

"life is not for the pursuit of logic, but for the pursuit of personal happiness."

Who's happiness? The retarded child that isn't aware of anything? That can barely differentiate between light and dark?

Or the parents? Who, probably aren't happy, but who are desperately trying to be - at the expense of somebody else's comfort?

We're all aware that we'd much rather be dead than get in an accident and be turned into a human cabbage. Hell, the people who're extremely physically disabled but mentally well are begging to die.

But this issue seems to have people going into hysterics...and I am yet to find a solid reason as to why.

[Splat]

Jacob, are you arguing that if you were in a serious accident that left you permanently mentally disabled, perfectly sentient and self-aware but unable to move or act normally, you'd think it best if you were killed and butchered?

If you're unable to consider the emotional and moral side of things yourself, then consider the emotional effect on others. If nothing else then consider the gratification gained from serving another human being, even one that can't help themselves. People are helped by helping others. And there are medical benefits to loving another person and being loved by that person in return, even if said person is mentally disabled.

And I disagree with your point and say I think I'd rather be alive and disabled than dead.

[Varrok]

Who's happiness? The retarded child that isn't aware of anything? That can barely differentiate between light and dark?

That's not the case of *every* mentally damaged person. Aside of that, sometimes you can't really tell that he's not aware, maybe he just can't communicate that.

[OANST]

Hey, everybody it's Jacob. Bored now.

[Jacob]

"Jacob, are you arguing that if you were in a serious accident that left you permanently mentally disabled, perfectly sentient and self-aware but unable to move or act normally, you'd think it best if you were killed and butchered?"

Erm, no-no. You misunderstand. I'm not talking about people who are aware. God, no. I'm not a monster, hahahahah!

However, to answer your question, and we never know just how we'd react in those instances but thinking about it from how I am now - yes, I would want to end my life and have my organs help people in need.

"If you're unable to consider the emotional and moral side of things yourself, then consider the emotional effect on others"

This is my point, though. There is no solid argument against my stance. Just the emotional one.

Why lock people away in prison? Surely that is emotionally detrimental? Why support capitalism? Why have freedom of speech? I'm sure the right to offend upsets many. Why do many things that could be considered bad for someone emotionally?

"If nothing else then consider the gratification gained from serving another human being, even one that can't help themselves."

If you want to help something that NEEDS you - get a dog. It'll give you much more affection. It also strikes me as incredibly selfish to keep something alive just to get a sense of personal gratification.

"And there are medical benefits to loving another person and being loved by that person in return, even if said person is mentally disabled."

They can't love something they're not aware of.

I can't remember the program that made me realise my view, but it showed a woman with a severely mentally disabled kid. And she was placing with his face and he was reacting with smiles...and (I'm sure she said the following) said herself - "The doctors say he's just reacting to external stimulus - but I like to think it's more than that."

Oh.

Great(!)

Whilst we're giving emotions to inanimate items, how about - "My hat rack just loves it when I put my bowler on it." or "My knives really get a personal kick out of slicing lemons."

It just baffles me - this idea of emotion being put in front of the needs of people. So many people could be saved, but they won't be. Why? 'cos of some emotional attachment like that you'd get towards a childhood toy.

"Hey, everybody it's Jacob. Bored now."

Feel free to ignore this thread, then. Jesus Christ. What are you, 5?

"That's not the case of *every* mentally damaged person. Aside of that, sometimes you can't really tell that he's not aware, maybe he just can't communicate that."

I'm being fairly specific here, though. Obviously I don't want soldiers rounding up a bunch of autistic kids...though, I can see how that would be appealing for some kind of late night TV show.


EDIT:

Someone on Twitter posed the argument that her brother inspired her dad to start up a charity and inspired her to work with people who need help mentally - and I recognise this argument.

They inspire people as well as helping medical research.

I approve of this counter argument.

[Havoc]

I agree with the basic premise that a severely disabled person is nothing more than a drain on society. The individual will always have to be cared for and is always costing money without every doing something for society in return (because they can't). So it's a basic fact, no matter which way you twist the issue.

However stating that because they are a drain on society we might as well harvest their organs is a little much. From a purely sterile and logistical point of view it might make sense. But from a humane and ethical one it makes no sense at all. Disabled or not, it's still a human being who has rights. Among which are the right to live and the right to medical care. Not to mention that not all mentally disabled people were mentally disabled from birth. One might become disabled after an accident or something.

The argument that should be made here is this: you shouldn't be able to have the child if early tests show that the child will be mentally disabled to such a degree that they need care for the rest of their life. One could argue that is for the parents to decide, but most often the parents are the least fit to make a decision like that due to emotional attachment (especially the mother). They would happily have the child, collect health benefits for taking care of it and spend society's money on something that is not benefiting anything for anyone ever.

[Jbot123]

I'm not a monster, hahahahah!

Oh I see. Okay then.
But seriously, I only agree with you if no one loves the person.

[OANST]

Guys, it's Jacob. We remember Jacob, right? He comes back once or twice a year to espouse a ridiculous, and callous idea so that he can get a rise out of people? Why does anyone still care about this?

It's Jacob. Christ.

[Havoc]

Guys, it's Jacob. We remember Jacob, right? He comes back once or twice a year to espouse a ridiculous, and callous idea so that he can get a rise out of people? Why does anyone still care about this?

It's Jacob. Christ.

"Oh noes, an ethically questionable discussion. I better side with the majority and ignore everyone who has a different opinion than myself the majority."

[Nepsotic]

Fucking hell. This has to be his worst one yet.

[STM]

I would just like to put out there that my mother's cousin had a son a few years ago who was born with half his intestines missing, a hole in his heart, his throat didn't work and god knows how many other complications.

Any way, the doctors did an insane job of patching him up and he's going to be starting playschool soon.

So actually, OANST, whether Jacob is being a moron on purpose (and we know he is) or not, this type of hate spouting shit actually does hit close to some people. Fortunately, Jacob's opinion counts for very little because he seems to have the social skills of a sea cucumber.

[Havoc]

That's a physical disability, though. I would like to see the doctors patch up the brain of a mentally retarded person.

[Manco]

In all likelihood that will probably be a valid medical procedure at some point in the future.

[Havoc]

To the point of restoring primary brain functions that were previously not present? I highly doubt I'll see that happen in my lifetime, tbh.

[STM]

Nice to see Havoc has an understanding of how the brain works.

[MeechMunchie]

In all likelihood that will probably be a valid medical procedure at some point in the future.

And since theoretically that could be during the lifetimes of those afflicted, we have no right to write them off now.

Besides, legalising the killing of someone without their consent, or in the case of the brain-dead, the consent of their next of kin, is just a line we as a society should never cross.

Also, under Jacob's law, a child born with limited mental function would be of no use to society until they'd matured to the point where their organs were ready for transplant. At that point, we're farming rather than just harvesting, and the legal ownership of another human being's body is another big no-no.

But hey if they round up all the retards then at least we won't have to listen to Havoc any more heyooo~

[MA]

oh, Jacob. of course the mentally handicapped aren't useless. for example: there are some who would fall into the mentally handicapped category who have photographic memory's, to the point where they can look at a landscape for a few seconds, leave and then recreate the image exactly as they saw it down to the last detail. anything, in fact. just as long as they saw it once.

in the example i saw the subject even remembered exactly how many windows were in a skyscraper in the background of a landscape, and drew each window. the picture didn't look special, it looked more like an elaborate doodle (in biro), but once you realized the drawing was an exact replica of the view, well. i was amazed and impressed. they even went back to compare the picture with the location. everything was spot on, even little details i failed to notice before. that's fucking useful.

[Phylum]

Ok, fuck it.

You're all missing the part where Jacob actually specified that the disabled person in question is an unaware vegetable.

Who's happiness? The retarded child that isn't aware of anything? That can barely differentiate between light and dark?

99.9% of mentally disabled people are nothing like that, by the way.

[MeechMunchie]

You're all missing the part where Jacob actually specified that the disabled person in question is an unaware vegetable.

I'm not. Most mentally disabled people are able to communicate that they'd rather not die. Jacob's specifically targeting the ones who can't, which is dumb.

Vegetables can't talk, but I think courgettes aren't in any rush to die either.

[Bullet Magnet]

Are you talking about brain dead vegetables or simply mentally handicapped? Because the latter get to live on account of being living human beings. This isn't an emotional argument, it is a bodily rights and human rights argument. Even if this were appropriate, where's the cut off point? how disabled do you have to be? Who decides which side of the line an individual is on? How would one protest the wrong ruling? It isn't just so absurdly unethical that your society plunges over the moral event horizon for permitting it, it's also so completely impractical that your meteoric plunge will be necessarily accelerated into the worst kind of oppressive hell.

If we're talking about actual vegetables then there's an argument to be made. But the guardians do have to permit it. A lot of the problems of organ shortage can be resolved with an opt-out presumed consent law. But that doesn't mean seizing organs from living human bodies independent of life support.

You seem to forget that human beings are emotional organisms and a lot of those emotions concern family. You're trying to take a sterile zero-sum approach and thus dismiss any arguments that have even a whiff of emotion. But in doing so you make a grave error: a society that does not consider the emotional health of its citizens is a broken one. Have you considered the possibility that being able to take away particular individuals from their families whenever they are deemed unfit to live may do more harm to society than good? What lengths might people go to keep such family members hidden? What mistakes might be made by the authorities? What social environment does this breed? What long-term effect might such unilateral action have on the surviving family members and thus the society in which they continue to live?

You can dismiss people's behaviour as irrational and pointless all you like, but if you therefore do not take it into account when you come to a decision about public policy then there will be unforeseen consequences. You need to work with the reality you actually have, not the one you think you should have.

[MA]

yeah that's what i was gonna say

[Mac Sirloin]

I cannot see any benefit from society by keeping what is effectively a sausage in clothes alive. There is none. Zero. Why do we do this? We do it because the parents are ridden with guilt, trying to force themselves to love something that lacks any real, human character. Lacks any personality in some cases.

Have you...ever actually met or interacted with a handicapped or developmentally disabled person? It doesn't really matter, what you're putting forth is disgusting and lazy thinking.

Go away, Jacob.

[Jordan]

I dread to think of the type of society that would be formed from your judgement jacob. However 'valid' your argument may seem, it is an extremely cruel way of dealing with human beings. They may be vegetables but they are still human beings and will most likely have emotional ties with someone. Maybe not on their end but by their families. Taking them away from their loved ones for "the greater good" would be an incredibly heartless thing to do.

[Nate]

Pretty much what BM said.

[Phylum]

Yeah, there's not much else to say on the topic. That's basically what I was too lazy to write out before.