0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Sometimes under the current system organs go to waste!Why can't they instead of either putting the child on the list or not at all why can't there be a secondary list so if there are no adults who could use the lung within the applicable area/location then the child gets the lung?Why are organ donation lists all or nothing? It would make all the sense in the world to have secondary lists maybe even tertiary lists. More lives could be saved.
I sympathize completely. However, to use against us. Let me ask you a troll. On the one who pulled it. But here's the question: where do I think it might as well have stepped out of all people would cling to a layman.
Humanity does learn from history,sadly, they're rarely the ones in power.
Life is too damned short for the concept of “guilty” pleasures to have any meaning.
Guys, this is getting creepy. Can we talk about cannibalism instead?
Wait, wut? They gave her a second set? Exactly how are they justifying this blatant favoritism?
Quote from: Brain Fritz on July 02, 2013, 05:49:14 pmWait, wut? They gave her a second set? Exactly how are they justifying this blatant favoritism?She's a child. Any judge who rules against her will literally face a lynch mob. I don't like it, but I admit, I'd do the same.
Quote from: PosthumanHeresy on July 02, 2013, 05:59:19 pmQuote from: Brain Fritz on July 02, 2013, 05:49:14 pmWait, wut? They gave her a second set? Exactly how are they justifying this blatant favoritism?She's a child. Any judge who rules against her will literally face a lynch mob. I don't like it, but I admit, I'd do the same.The problem is that children are less viable candidates for organ transplants. This girl cost a life, as Sleepy pointed out, who could have used that first set. This outcome was predicted.
Quote from: Brain Fritz on July 02, 2013, 06:03:04 pmQuote from: PosthumanHeresy on July 02, 2013, 05:59:19 pmQuote from: Brain Fritz on July 02, 2013, 05:49:14 pmWait, wut? They gave her a second set? Exactly how are they justifying this blatant favoritism?She's a child. Any judge who rules against her will literally face a lynch mob. I don't like it, but I admit, I'd do the same.The problem is that children are less viable candidates for organ transplants. This girl cost a life, as Sleepy pointed out, who could have used that first set. This outcome was predicted.I know. I never said it was right. If the courts were robot-controlled like I wish they were, this wouldn't happen. But, humans have emotions, and in the end, they will factor in. I think it was wrong. I still would do the same.
Quote from: PosthumanHeresy on July 02, 2013, 06:26:50 pmQuote from: Brain Fritz on July 02, 2013, 06:03:04 pmQuote from: PosthumanHeresy on July 02, 2013, 05:59:19 pmQuote from: Brain Fritz on July 02, 2013, 05:49:14 pmWait, wut? They gave her a second set? Exactly how are they justifying this blatant favoritism?She's a child. Any judge who rules against her will literally face a lynch mob. I don't like it, but I admit, I'd do the same.The problem is that children are less viable candidates for organ transplants. This girl cost a life, as Sleepy pointed out, who could have used that first set. This outcome was predicted.I know. I never said it was right. If the courts were robot-controlled like I wish they were, this wouldn't happen. But, humans have emotions, and in the end, they will factor in. I think it was wrong. I still would do the same.Which is why the judge was an idiot. The old system removed the human element. Toss it back in and we may well hear that this child is on set three.
Why would you do the same thing?
You can't afford to operate on emotions when you're in that position. Those lungs had a greater chance of saving an adult, and therefore you need to make a ruling based on that probability.
It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?
Being required by someone else’s religious beliefs to behave contrary to one’s sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful.