Organ Donation???

[Aquarius]

Jeanette L:

I think what the responder was trying to interject into the dialogue is the fact that the Medical/Science community has allowed for a philosophy of relativism to dominate any discussion of moral judgement, which in turn has allowed immoral practices (abortion being the example given, but not limited to) for the sake of financial gain, and the help of some to the detriment of others. I don’t think the intent was to suggest that the entire system or all practitioners were immoral or practicing for financial gain; only, that philosophical corruption has already been introduced into the system, which has a tendency over time to corrupt the system as a whole.

It is more about where it is all heading, not that there is any question that hundreds of thousands of people have been helped and blessed through the donor transplant system.

I think the system might be greatly improved if there were more financial incentives. People are now dying because there is not an available transplant organ. If living people could sell an irrevocable right to their organs upon death, then many more would live, and many more would be paying attention to exactly how and when the organs are removed.

 

[Jeanette_L]

Lorarose:

So yes…I agree we should be on the watch for immoral practices.
You should rent the movie “The Island”.
Very gruesome. But if you can handle some gore - the message is appropriate to this discussion.

I just looked up the trailer for “The Island” online and it does look like what I imagine is coming our way in the future if we can’t get a handle on things.

The problem is, that in general, (there’s that word again ) the public usually doesn’t find out about a lot of abuses until they have been well established and people are already benefiting in some way from them, then it’s hard to put the brakes on, you know? It’s already happened with fetal stem cell research (although the benefits have been greatly exaggerated, as compared with adult stem cell research, the screaming to allow it to continue has drowned out any reasonable discussion).

I just read yesterday where the South Koreans have successfully cloned a dog, which supposedly is one of the most difficult species biologically to clone. The inference was that we are well on our way to getting on with the human trials. And we don’t really know if it isn’t already happening somewhere in this world.

It is all happening so fast, and nobody has time to say “wait, let’s think this through”, especially since there seems to be a race on in the global science community to get this done. And no one seems to have any authority to stop it even if some or a majority are horrified at the prospects. Whoever has the technology seems to be able to move forward with whatever they want.

I am afraid I have gotten way off topic here, and since I am fairly new to this forum, I don’t know what the consequences are. A hatchet maybe?

Jeanette

 

[Jeanette_L]

Aquarius:

I think the system might be greatly improved if there were more financial incentives. People are now dying because there is not an available transplant organ. If living people could sell an irrevocable right to their organs upon death, then many more would live, and many more would be paying attention to exactly how and when the organs are removed.

Unfortunately, if that were taken to it’s diabolical end, which is what seems to happen in this world we live in, then it would become a system where only those who could afford to pay the going price for organs would receive them.

In a capitalistic market of supply and demand determining the price of goods, it would probably become a bidding war, with the rich always ending up the winners, on account of insurance companies not being able to financially compete in that kind of market, and the poor selling their organs to benefit either themselves financially or their family members.

Nightmare scenarios all around when people with fallen natures are involved. Mankind always comes up with ways of outdoing himself in depravity.

 

[Lorarose]

Getting back to the op…here is what our catechism says…

1: CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 2296 (542 bytes ) preview document matches
dangers and risks to the donor are proportionate to the good sought for the recipient. Organ donation after death is a noble and meritorious act and is to be encouraged
URL: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2296.htm

And while the phrase “after death” has been the topic of much discussion, the Church has acknowledged that the medical community does have (name removed by moderator)ut on this definition.
Brain death has been widely accepted throughout the world, and within the Church as a legitimate definition of “death”.

The problem is, that in general, (there’s that word again ) the public usually doesn’t find out about a lot of abuses until they have been well established and people are already benefiting in some way from them, then it’s hard to put the brakes on, you know? It’s already happened with fetal stem cell research (although the benefits have been greatly exaggerated, as compared with adult stem cell research, the screaming to allow it to continue has drowned out any reasonable discussion).

Luckily…in this day and age of the internet it is going to be more and more difficult for immoral practices to be kept under wraps.
Fetal stem cell research will eventually die out.
There have been no successes - only failure.
On the contrary there has been very exciting successe in adult stem cell research.
Eventually they’re all going to have to admit the obvious and give up on a futile cause.

 

[Aquarius]

Jeanette L:

Unfortunately, if that were taken to it’s diabolical end, which is what seems to happen in this world we live in, then it would become a system where only those who could afford to pay the going price for organs would receive them.

In a capitalistic market of supply and demand determining the price of goods, it would probably become a bidding war, with the rich always ending up the winners, on account of insurance companies not being able to financially compete in that kind of market, and the poor selling their organs to benefit either themselves financially or their family members.

Nightmare scenarios all around when people with fallen natures are involved. Mankind always comes up with ways of outdoing himself in depravity.

Transplants currently cost a fortune and they are not restricted to the rich.

The bidding war is a function of both supply and demand. To assume the price will be very high assumes a large demand and a small supply. There is no reason to assume that. That has not been our experience in other markets.

In countries where one can sell an organ, the price is very low. In India the rate is $700 for a kidney from a living person. There is a huge supply and a limited demand. While India is not a recommended model, it does show how the market works.

But, you do bring up an interesting case. Suppose there were a bidding war for kidneys. What’s wrong with a poor dead man selling his kidney for a fortune to benefit his family? The rich guy gets a kidney, and the poor family gets a huge financial benefit so their kids now go to Harvard.

Food is necessary for all life, and it is controlled by financial markets, not donations. The system works pretty well.

(Those who still want to donate for free will have that option.)

 

[Aquarius]

Lorarose:

Getting back to the op…here is what our catechism says…

And while the phrase “after death” has been the topic of much discussion, the Church has acknowledged that the medical community does have (name removed by moderator)ut on this definition.
Brain death has been widely accepted throughout the world, and within the Church as a legitimate definition of “death”.

Luckily…in this day and age of the internet it is going to be more and more difficult for immoral practices to be kept under wraps.
Fetal stem cell research will eventually die out.
There have been no successes - only failure.
On the contrary there has been very exciting successe in adult stem cell research.
Eventually they’re all going to have to admit the obvious and give up on a futile cause.

I doubt science will give up on fetal stem cells. Every therapy we have did not work at some stage in its development. If the standard were to abandon whatever had not yet produced desired results, then nothing would ever produce such results.

 

[Lorarose]

I doubt science will give up on fetal stem cells. Every therapy we have did not work at some stage in its development.

Only time will tell, but if recent trends continue - why pursue a pointless pursuit when adult stem cells have proven to be much more successful?
Embryonic stem cell trials have only brought failure at a great expense.

 

[Aquarius]

Lorarose:

Only time will tell, but if recent trends continue - why pursue a pointless pursuit when adult stem cells have proven to be much more successful?
Embryonic stem cell trials have only brought failure at a great expense.

There is no reason to think it is a pointless pursuit. The fact that a pursuit has not yielded the desired results yet is not a reason to abandon it. That standard would have us abandon all current research efforts which have not yet achieved their desired results.

 

[Lorarose]

There is no reason to think it is a pointless pursuit. The fact that a pursuit has not yielded the desired results yet is not a reason to abandon it. That standard would have us abandon all current research efforts which have not yet achieved their desired results.

It is pointless to continue banging one’s head against the wall.
That is what is happening in the field of embryonic stem cell research.
Furthermore - all the action and promise of hope is occurring in a field that does not require the creation of human life in order to just turn around and destroy it.
Adult stem cell research, in this past year alone, has achieved great strides.
I have a personal friend who received a transfusion of stem cells from herself - and has been cured of an aggressive form of bone cancer.
Eventually the money is going to have follow the procedures that actually produce results.

It is probably pointless to argue about this right now - you are set in your opinion and I am set in mine.
Time will tell.

 

[Aquarius]

Lorarose:

It is pointless to continue banging one’s head against the wall.
That is what is happening in the field of embryonic stem cell research.
Furthermore - all the action and promise of hope is occurring in a field that does not require the creation of human life in order to just turn around and destroy it.
Adult stem cell research, in this past year alone, has achieved great strides.
I have a personal friend who received a transfusion of stem cells from herself - and has been cured of an aggressive form of bone cancer.
Eventually the money is going to have follow the procedures that actually produce results.

It is probably pointless to argue about this right now - you are set in your opinion and I am set in mine.
Time will tell.

I applaud and encourage the good work that has been done with adult stem cells.

But we should be able to identify other areas of research which have not yet produced the desired results. How about abandoning cancer research? There are many areas of cancer research which have not yet produced desired results. Are those researchers banging their heads against a wall?

Bird flu vaccine? Hasn’t happened yet. Should it be abandoned?

Diabetes? Still a scourge. Are those researchers banging their heads against a wall? Should they quit?

I completely agree time will tell, but only if time is given a chance.

 

[Lorarose]

Part of the process is abandoning things that don’t work and then going back to the drawing board.
You mention cancer research. Well…some things have not worked - and other things have worked.
The money follows success.

There are many examples of practices that have been abandoned because they have been found to be ineffective.
If that were not true, then we would still be treating blood infections with leeches, or mental illness with lobotomy and shock therapy.

And when it continues to be shown that adult stem cells are much more effective than embryonic stem cells, it makes sense to conclude the money should follow what produces results.

 

[Aquarius]

Lorarose:

Part of the process is abandoning things that don’t work and then going back to the drawing board.
You mention cancer research. Well…some things have not worked - and other things have worked.
The money follows success.

There are many examples of practices that have been abandoned because they have been found to be ineffective.
If that were not true, then we would still be treating blood infections with leeches, or mental illness with lobotomy and shock therapy.

And when it continues to be shown that adult stem cells are much more effective than embryonic stem cells, it makes sense to conclude the money should follow what produces results.

Money should fund adult stem cell research, and dead ends in research should be abandoned.

But, I’d leave the decision of when a dead end is met to the researchers.

And success in one aspect of research is no reason to abandon another. That approach would leave us with unchanging therapies.

There have probably been dead ends in both adult and fetal stem cell research that the researchers themselves identified. Did the researchers in adult stem cells need help in identifying those dead ends? Are there areas of adult stem cell research that have not produced desired results? Should those areas be abandoned?

If there is a huge breakthrough in fetal stem cell research, is that a reason to abandon adult stem cells?

 

[Lorarose]

There have probably been dead ends in both adult and fetal stem cell research that the researchers themselves identified. Did the researchers in adult stem cells need help in identifying those dead ends? Are there areas of adult stem cell research that have not produced desired results? Should those areas be abandoned?

If there is a huge breakthrough in fetal stem cell research, is that a reason to abandon adult stem cells?

I never said the researchers “need help” in identifying dead ends.
They are quite capable of doing that, and so far that is exactly what has been happening.
It isn’t just that there have been some dead ends. They have produced NO success - where that is not true for adult stem cells.

I think I made it clear that time will tell in this matter.
This is not the topic of the op, and I will no longer discuss this matter with you.

 

[Aquarius]

Lorarose:

I never said the researchers “need help” in identifying dead ends.
They are quite capable of doing that, and so far that is exactly what has been happening.
It isn’t just that there have been some dead ends. They have produced NO success - where that is not true for adult stem cells.

I think I made it clear that time will tell in this matter.
This is not the topic of the op, and I will no longer discuss this matter with you.

Dr. Salk had no success for a long time, but never gave up until he did succeed. I’m glad he resisted the temptation to give up at various points in his quest. I think we have the same kind of people in all fields of research. Let’s hope they persevere in the face of criticism from the bleachers.