Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Canada to Allow Terminal Patients to be Killed for Parts?

Page 1 of 1 [ 4 posts ] 

Previous topic | Next topic

Psychlone
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 713
Location: Michigan

20 Sep 2005, 6:24 am

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/sep/05091604.html

Quote:
Coupled with the erosion of the value of life from abortion and the rise of euthanasia, assisted suicide and related “end of life” issues, medical ethics is moving more and more into a dangerous grey area. From less-developed countries, it is becoming more common to hear news reports, horror stories, of patients having their organs “harvested” without permission and of poor and marginalized persons being killed for their organs.

Now Canada, always keeping in the forefront of such “developments” in post-modern medical ethics, is considering changing the rules for organ donation to allow organs to be removed after cardiac arrest after life support has been withdrawn. This has some concerned that terminal patients and non-terminal disabled will be prematurely ‘unhooked’ in order to procure organs for transplant. Walter Glannon, a clinical ethicist at the Children’s and Women’s Health Centre in Vancouver said, “The concern is that the removal of organs for transplant will take precedence over the (donor) patient.”



Mithrandir
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2004
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 614
Location: Victoria, BC Canada

20 Sep 2005, 11:48 pm

The idea that someone who can't live can help others live.
Ends justifies the means.
Yet, if stemcell research continues its miraculous approach, there may not be terminally ill patients.



Tak
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Gender: Female
Posts: 278
Location: Minneapolis Minnesota

21 Sep 2005, 9:22 am

Can you say fearmongering boys and girls?



adversarial
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 549

24 Sep 2005, 7:19 am

Tak wrote:
Can you say fearmongering boys and girls?


Yes, we could say 'fearmongering' and it is rather tempting to do so; saves worrying about weighty ethical dilemmas such as further erosion of the rights of the truly disadvantaged (as opposed to others).

I am not sure why there should not be an open and considered debate around the very real possibility that those with the necessary means and connections will be able to circumvent ethical considerations to get what they want.

Personally, if these tentative concerns about medical ethics are proven to have any basis in reality, then I would rather have a hollow tooth with a cyanide capsule in it, so that I could ensure that nobody benefitted from my misfortune.


_________________
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw (Taken from someone on comp.programming)