Wednesday, October 18, 2006

This is just wrong...

Seven undertakers in the New York area have admitted being part of a scheme to steal body parts for transplants.

The criminal operation saw body parts removed from corpses without the consent of relatives and sold to biomedical companies.

This is really sinking to a low level; it is one thing if a person is a voluntary organ donor, but stealing parts for a profit is disgusting, to say the least.


GUYK said...

Yeah, it is. I have read that in China they have taken the live hearts from condemed prisoners for transplants..I don't know how true that is but it also is disgusting.

Lisa W. said...

Hey I agree that you shouldn't do it for profit, but I think it's pretty damn selfish NOT to be an organ donor, too.

Karen said...

I agree, and I hope they're not only prosecuted to the full extent of the law but also haunted by those they stole parts from.

Anonymous said...

The SOP should be that a person is automatically an organ donor unless he specifies to the contrary with a tattoo or medical bracelet alerting medical authorities that he is a selfish, insensitive person and wants his body to rot or burn rather than help another human being. This goes for religions that prohibit use thereof.

If we had this policy in place, there would not be any need for these parts-ghouls. The only redeeming feature to this particular crime is that lives were saved.

It's a shame that we criminalize this behaviour. What should be criminal is allowing people to be buried with useful organs.

BobG said...

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this one, bernie. A person's body is their own, and the state has no right to appropriate it without the person's consent. If a person's religion is against recycling them, then their wishes should be respected, whether it is considered selfish or not. If we start confiscating a person's body at death, how long until all of their possessions are confiscated, "for the public good"?
Just my opinion.

Anonymous said...

We don't really disagree. What's wrong with an opt-out? Why can't we have presumed consent unless the person says otherwise? Those who feel that God gave them their bodies to do whatever they want with them can express that wish. I'm opposed to mandatory body harvesting against the express wishes of the donor, but suppose you knew that the majority of people would be just as happy being buried minus a liver as long as it helps some poor unfortunate shlub.

However, I disagree with you about the body belonging to you. A person of faith has to believe that God's design for our bodies is exactly the same as He has for the rest of nature. This year's leaves are mulch for next year's forest growth. Even though I am an Atheist, I believe my body is sacred and I am merely a temporary custodian until the next soul needs it. If I were to believe in God, it would be a Compassionate, Merciful Being who would instruct us to return our leased bodies back into the pool when He has finally called our Souls to Heaven. But that's just me.

Also I cannot for the life of me reconcile those ideas of certain religions that oppose recycling on the grounds that your body is yours to do whatever you wish and at the same time condemn women for having abortions on the ground that their bodies are not theirs to do whatever they wish.

We can be donors or we can let our deaths be stinking, rotting roadkill.

BobG said...

My disagreement has nothing to do with personal beliefs regarding religion; it has more to do with the state's right to harvest a person being the default, rather than the the exception. When we start making confiscation the norm, then I worry about a slippery slope that eventually makes it mandatory, and then we have to worry about a situation where death penalties may be enacted more easily to fill a need. I would rather have it stay voluntary.
But if we all agreed on everything, we wouldn't be thinking individuals, so we may have to agree to disagree on this particular point.