Should organ donation and blood donation be compulsory?

[ShadowTemplar]

\end{flamewar}

 

Originally posted by Spider AL

Researchers doing both at once would accomplish half as much, that's why.

 

The number of available researchers is hardly the limiting factor in the equation.

 

If one diverted - say - the part of the NASA budget that isn't being used for anything useful to furthering research on other subjects, you could improve the research in both the fields of sustainable development and reproductive health. And probably still have money to spare.

 

Or you might want to actually begin to tax multinational corporations such as McDonalds and Coca Cola...

[Spider AL]

So you should cut every men's balls off so we don't reproduce.

And cut yours too.

How very vulgar. No, I for one am not led about by my "balls", so I don't need to cut them off. I can merely use contraception. So can you, so can everyone, male or female.

 

However, it's worth noting that I've always been in favour of organised sterilisation among couples that have already had reams and reams of children. I myself have no interest in having children, as there's no logical point to it, and it would definitely hamper my lifestyle. I prefer not to give in to my animal instincts where possible.

 

The number of available researchers is hardly the limiting factor in the equation.

I disagree. Scientists spending their entire working lives finding new fillings for breast implants are a COMPLETE waste of resources and education. Compel them to study ecological sciences earlier in their careers, and do the world some good. That's my plan.

 

And yes, that goes for scientists working on organ transplantation too.

 

Or you might want to actually begin to tax multinational corporations such as McDonalds and Coca Cola...

Hey, you know I'm always in favour of such measures. But still, that doesn't alter the fact that there are many medical and scientific "disciplines" that are simply counter-productive to our survival as a race. It's no use just downsizing them, because they'd still be wasteful, just smaller.

 

No, scrap them altogether.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by Spider AL

I can merely use contraception. So can you, so can everyone, male or female.

 

Unless they are Catholic... (Sorry, me bad but it was just so tempting.)

 

However, it's worth noting that I've always been in favour of organised sterilisation among couples that have already had reams and reams of children.

 

An... interesting policy. One that opens up whole worlds of new and creative methods of oppression...

 

I disagree. Scientists spending their entire working lives finding new fillings for breast implants are a COMPLETE waste of resources and education.

 

It pays better than the universities :=) Seriously, though, there is no shortage of qualified, capable and talented people applying for Ph.d.s in the various fields related to sustainable development (or, for that matter, in any other field(s)). It is a matter of money, not manpower.

 

Compel them to study ecological sciences earlier in their careers, and do the world some good. That's my plan.

 

You cannot 'compel' people to do research in certain fields rather than other. There's no assembly line marked 'research' that you can simply staff with people who don't care a jiffy. Well, you could, but the result would hardly be satisfying compaired to the money invested in it.

 

What you can do is direct funding towards those who do the kind of research you want done.

 

However, the balance between necessary political priorities and unjustified infringement of academic freedom is a fine line indeed.

 

It is a time-honoured tradition of modern, Western culture that politicians do not interfere with the planning and execution of groundbreaking research on lower than Faculty level.

 

There are three main reasons for this:

 

a) The people doing the research are the people who know best what is media hype and what is potentially revolutionary (and since the former is far more common than the latter, politicians have a tendency towards wasting a lot of money when they micro-manage).

 

b) Academic freedom and independence ensures that a body of independent, knowledgeable people exist to cry foul when the politicians are trying to f*ck people over.

 

And

 

c) Politicians (and most other people outside the world of science) often do not appreciate the magnitude or importance of the spin-off effect.

[Spider AL]

interesting policy. One that opens up whole worlds of new and creative methods of oppression...

I find this pathetic modern society based entirely upon ignorance and gullible consumerism to be oppressive. I find the fact that we're stripping the planet so that life for my generation will be that much more difficult, to be somewhat oppressive.

 

I do NOT find the act of sterilising people with eight children in an affluent western country where volume of children isn't necessary for genetic survival... to be oppressive. It is merely good, sound, sense.

 

Seriously, though, there is no shortage of qualified, capable and talented people applying for Ph.d.s in the various fields related to sustainable development

Once again, I must re-iterate my point: It is not a matter of "shortage". Our global ecological problems are not being solved at a rate that is acceptable. Manpower spent on other useless fields and in many cases, directly competing fields, such as the medical fields that prolong life and add to population growth, is manpower wasted.

 

You cannot 'compel' people to do research in certain fields rather than other.

Of course you can. Our society compels a-grade minds to become plastic surgeons. How? Because it pays better than other more altruistic and useful disciplines. Our society is geared to compel people to adopt useless, counter-productive existences. A complete societal change must be instituted if we are to survive... in a comfortable sense.

 

Of course it won't happen, but that's irrelevant to my point now, isn't it.

[Kurgan]

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

And it could just be hellishly expensive. It takes a lot of liquid nitrogen to keep stem cells cryo-frozen for - say - 74 years. Now, liquid N_2 isn't exactly expensive (infact it's cheaper by volume than milk AFAIK). But still. I for one do not believe that stem cell treatment will come around before stable cloning techniques - because I believe that cloning will be required to carry out a lot of stem cell research. And when you have stable cloning techniques, you can dispense with the cryo-freezing and make the cells on the spot.

 

Using them for research, on the other hand, seems like a good idea - as well as a good way to get around backwards objections to therapeutic cloning and stem cell research.

 

That is a good point, and the technique is rather new, so of course it's going to be expensive at first. However it may be a worthwhile investment, if it's going to save lives. It has a much greater chance of not being rejected than say, fetal stem cells, since it's from the exact person's blood at birth. It's not as if human cloning is going to be cheap either, and that is pretty controversial as well with the public and with leaders.

 

I just hope as an option it is pursued. I could see one day it being compulsary. Even if the person who had the umbilical cord died, it could be used to save family members (as it was in the case I watched on this documentary about it). There are other methods of stem cell harvesting that don't involve aborted fetuses, but this seems to be a ripe source for them.

[kipperthefrog]

I'm so lazy I dont care enough to become an organ donor. I say it is your body yor choice.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by kipperthefrog

I'm so lazy I dont care enough to become an organ donor. I say it is your body yor choice.

 

That may be one of the more horrible things that I've ever heard somebody say...

 

 

You're too lazy to do something as simple as file to be an organ donor to SAVE PEOPLE'S LIVES? You don't even have to DO anything to save those lives, you'd just let them die so you don't have to fill out a piece of paper?

 

 

Un be FREAKIN leavable.

[Rogue15]

2 words:

 

HELL NO.

 

I'd die if I had to give blood. I pass out and hyperventilate (and when i wake i am immobilized for a good 2 minutes...) when merely giving a ****in blood test....a pint would or a blood transfusion would definetely kill me.

 

This is kinda where my republican side disappears XD

 

 

Why not just use cloned blood?

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by Kurgan

That is a good point, and the technique is rather new, so of course it's going to be expensive at first. However it may be a worthwhile investment, if it's going to save lives.

 

[...]

 

I just hope as an option it is pursued. I could see one day it being compulsary.

 

[...]

 

There are other methods of stem cell harvesting [...] but this seems to be a ripe source for them.

 

Kurgan makes an excellent point as he so often does.

 

-ST

[LightNinja]

Originally posted by InsaneSith

Me, I'm an organ donor. So mine will be donated when I die.

Thats my philosophy.

 

Originally posted by Rogue15

Why not just use cloned blood?

Cloned blood? wtf are you talking about?? . I belive thats not possible

 

 

In my opinion people who doesnt will to donate because, for example, -"What if my organs went to a neo-nazi neo-conservative ultra-liberal satan worshipping scumbag? Why, I'd be spinning in my grave." -or any other paranoid or stupid reason in my opinion is people who cannot think in the other people, the ones who really need their lives to be saved, they only think in theirself. I think it's awesome when if for any matter you die, make another person start living with you inside him/her. Also i hope that people who isnt a donator dont recive a donation, i know is radical, but donators should have priority to have a donation for them.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by LightNinja

Cloned blood? wtf are you talking about?? . I belive thats not possible

 

AFAIK, it actually is. Well, you're not actually cloning the blood itself, but you can extract bone marrow containing blood-generating stem cells. That, however will never be an economical solution - not to mention the fact that it is a far greater intrusion upon the host body than tapping the blood.

[toms]

I like that idea...

 

except i can't remember if i'm a donor or not.... i'm pretty sure i filled in the form, but then again i'm really bad at any kind of form filling.

 

Still, my parents are trustworthy... they would do the right thing anyway...