Slashdot Mirror
In Israel, Potential Organ Donors Could Jump the Queue
laron writes "In Israel, a new law is in the making: Holders of donor cards and their families would get preference if they should need an organ for themselves. Apparently this initiative faces resistance from Orthodox rabbis, who hold that organ donation is against religious law. Jacob Lavee, director of the heart transplant unit at Israel's Sheba Medical Center, and one of the draftees of this new law, hopes that a broader pool of organs will ultimately benefit everyone, but acknowledges that one of his primary motivations is 'to prevent free riders.' (Apparently receiving an organ is OK under religious law.)"
"If I can't contribute organs because of my religious beliefs, the state shouldn't be allowed to harm me,"
Seriously? This is the kind of stuff Jesus was criticizing in the bible: he tried to show that loving each other and helping each other out is more important than following the law to exactness. Fortunately it is a minority that feel this way, most of the rabbis in Israel are more sane (according to the article).
Qxe4
I may be missing something, and feel free to tell me. But I have no problem with donors being higher on the list. It makes sense to reward altruism in society and this certainly fits the bill. Sure some religions might interject, but just like organ donation religious practices are a choice and like every choice they carry consequences. That's not to say non-donors shouldn't get organs, but they should not be the priority.
Instead of 2 choices (donor or non-donor), how about a third category: donor with preference to other donors. This takes the decision away from the government and to the owner of the organs.
I'm sure some people would be willing to donate to anyone, but the majority would choose the new third option.
Yeah, I don't understand this. Their religion comes from a time when cutting-edge surgery involved a dull axe, some grain alcohol (to get the surgeon's courage up) and maybe some hot tar if you were lucky. How can they possibly justify applying a book written by a bunch of shepherds and nomads to something as modern as organ transplantation?
And if they think that God intended for His holy book to say something about organ transplants, wouldn't it be right there where it's obvious (like say in the ten commandments), and not hidden away in some obscure little passage?
That'd be an odd statement from anyone familiar with Judaism itself, as opposed to someone generalizing it along with other religions.
According to most Jews' interpretation of Jewish law, saving lives takes priority over nearly everything else. This is why, for example, taking pig insulin is perfectly okay.
Consider the stereotype of Jews being doctors. Jews, in general, don't like throwing lives away.
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
I'm guessing it's got to do with the taboo on death that still lingers - probably even moreso in the U.S.
When I die, my body does not belong to the State.
I'm inherently suspicious of anything designed to be opt-out...
And exceedingly suspicious of any opt-out program designed to take property away from me or my kin.
If you don't know, your corpse belongs to your estate unless it goes unclaimed for a certain period of time,
at which point your corpse belong to the State (and the remains are useless for anything besides an anatomy lesson).
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
You will notice that no sensible Jew asks a doc not to perform an emergency operation during Shabbat. Saving a life trumps religious doctrines. Even according to the religious law.
Shabbat is supposed to make you relax and reflect, it's not supposed to let you die on purpose if you happen to get sick untimely. The whole crap about "God's will" somehow didn't make it into the faith system 'til some nutjobs took it into their hands.
You'll also notice that it's ok for Muslim to interrupt important things like Ramadan in case they get sick, it's quite ok to drink and even eat during the day when you're dehydrated and your body needs it for survival. Like Shabbat, Ramadan is supposed to make you think and reflect, to realize just how good you got it. It's not supposed to torture you for some holy reason.
Religions originally did actually make a lot of sense. It wasn't 'til the whackos and nutcases took control of it and turned it into a tool of oppression. Granted, that happened quite quickly after their founders croaked, but I'm pretty sure if Jesus, Mohammed or ... well, whoever wrote the Pentateuch could see what became of their work, they'd be quite pissed at their successors.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
There are two problems with this statement...
1) Believing in a make believe sky person, for example God(s) qualifies someone as a nutcase to begin with
2) Religion has and always will be used as a tool of oppression
In what way does religion ever make any sense? I could tell you unicorns made the earth and I'd have as much proof as any other religion that makes similar claims.
When you start putting an acceptable face on preferential medical treatment, it's the thin end of the wedge.
How long before this perfectly acceptable and seemingly reasonable tier-ring system is tweaked some more?
Perhaps soldiers get preferential treatment? I can see that meeting little public resistance.
Then soldiers and their immediate families.
And if soldiers, why not fire-fighters or even other medical staff?
Or politicians?
At what point do people enter a job market, or start a political campaign, just to help a loved one move up a few spaces on the transplant waiting list?
And if it did extend as far as politicians, what with campaign contributions being as messed up as they are, how is that any different than buying the organs in the first place?
Religion can actually serve a valuable purpose, especially in primitive cultures. They offer a focal point and a sense of belonging in large groups. The human nature does not allow a sensible cooperation in groups larger than twenty people. Sure, culture and "civilisation" eventually gave us a way to do it, we are today quite able to cooperate with people that do not belong to our "family and friends" group, simply because we learned to do that. Also, we have other structures built that allow us to identify "our" group, from nations to sports team colors.
Basically religions served a sociologic purpose for early human. When you lack the technology to enforce even the most basic laws (like, say, don't kill your neighbor just 'cause he has the grub you want and you don't feel like going around the corner to the market...), you need some all-seeing all-powerful entity to keep your people in check. Sure, it won't keep everyone in line, but maybe at least a number of the guy won't go at each other's throat for a few handful of rice.
So yes, religion isn't really a necessity anymore. We can easily replace it with technology. But it did have its place in the history of humanity, and it was quite important in forming our ability to cooperate in larger groups.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That's fucking stupid. Why the hell should they be punished for someone else's decision?
Dilbert RSS feed
When you die, you belong to no one. While you're alive, you can't transfer property rights over your body (one living person can't own another living person) and when you're dead you're not alive to agree to the transfer. Things like wills are constructions of the state to enforce property rights after you're dead. To that end, the state has a lot of power to possess things when you're dead. The fact that a vast majority of people might in fact want to put your body to good use when you're dead is, at least from a moral perspective, a good basis for supporting opt-out systems, anyways. It's not like, after all, you can't say "no" (and yes, clerical errors will likely occur, but there's no way to get around that since you'll be too dead to answer).
Then you must free very suspicious of the legal system in general. Not only can it take your property, it can also take your liberty or your life. There's no real way to opt-out of it except leaving the State (and even then, extradition can get you); but, then, leaving the State also protects you from the opt-out donor system.
And estates are a by-product of State law (or a family with a lot of guns and a willingness to defend the property). This is, fundamentally, no different than estate tax laws. If you're really against the whole concept of your corpse being possibly used for organ donation, feel free to vote against it and opt-out if a law pass. But, if the vast majority wants an opt-out system, you don't much standing to complain, really.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Judaism is actually a very well reasoned religion
Meaning: they are used to making up excuses for their irrational dogmas.
As I understand it ... man is created in God's image, therefore is as close to perfection as you can already make it
Cute. Except they make an exception for that one bit that's your most sensitive erogenous zone. And rabbis dare call that bit an imperfection. And even deny the pain that the procedure to "fix it" leads to pain and negative side effects, or even pretend these are a good thing.
See a dogma, see a contradiction, make up absolute bullshit to keep dogma. Is this "reasoned"? Come on. Judaism is every bit as irrational and retarded as every other religion - but ESPECIALLY retarded for that one dogma, one so insane that it makes my blood boil in rage. If I sound disrespectful, you got it right. I abhor religion in principle, but those that promote genital mutilation, I regard as nothing but evil.
Circumcision is child abuse.
I know 3 MDs, about a dozen med students in various years, and way too many pre-med undergrads. All of them would be stuck livid at the notion that they would purposefully let a patient go so they could harvest the organs to save another. It's jut not in their mindset - they might not be super jaded yet, but they try to save anybody, anytime. That's how they're wired.
I am become
You know, if transplant surgeons took trauma cases, and all organs were universally compatible, and physicians liked getting sued, that might bear some tiny resemblance to an actual moral dilemma. But none of those is the case.
I have trouble with the notion that we must somehow feel obligated to "respect" someone's beliefs. I have no respect for a belief system that can not be adequately justified. That's not to say I don't respect someone's right to believe what they want. I imagine that the distinction, however, is lost upon most people (and this confusion is probably the cause of the perception that any nonsense should be respected as long as it's a belief).
I completely disagree with you here. What I think you're saying is that religion makes people obey the law; or something along these lines.
That's simply not true. Most people in this world are naturally good people and want to do good deeds regardless of what they do or do not believe.
Regardless of how they justify it, it's still genital mutilation. And it's still fucking evil.
Orthodox Jews have a legalistic interpretation of their holy writings, i.e. principally the Old Testament. This leads them to look for loopholes within their own religious writings. This search for loopholes isn't a characteristic of rich and arrogant Jews, but rather of Orthodox Jews, perhaps specifically those who are arrogant enough to think that what man wrote in a book is more important that the intentions that an omniscient God should be fully aware of. This seems very silly to me, but I'm a scientist and a geek.
Other sects of Judaism, such as the Reform and Conservative movements in the US that represent a majority of American Jews, tend to look at their holy writings as part of their culture, not writings to be interpreted literally. These groups view God through a more modern lens and tend to put aside some or all of the legalistic framework in favor of a more charitable interpretation of God as distinct from the writings of man in the Bible. These groups aren't so obsessed about finding loopholes in their religious texts, since they acknowledge that ancient practices have to be adapted to modern life.
You can't paint all Jews with one brush on these sorts of things, just like you can't with all Christians. In fact, because Judaism is considered to be "born in" to those born Jewish, many people are considered Jews by the Jewish faith who are for all intents and purposes agnostic or atheistic.
I'd lump myself into the boat of "American cultural Jews" - I practice the culture of my religion, have passover dinners, tell the stories, can read Hebrew and speak a bit of Yiddish passably, and plan on passing that culture down to my children. But I don't believe in an omnipotent God, or believe that if there is such a God he is disjoint from our universe and unknowable to us, and that good and bad behavior should be motivated by a working ethical framework, not religious fear.
And I am an organ donor. Because it's the right thing to do and because when I'm dead I won't need 'em no more. Even if I believed in God, I see no reason he would object to organ donation. In any case, the question the Orthodox Jews are dealing with seems to be about when a person can be considered dead - I fail to see why their religious scholars don't admit the limits of their expertise and acknowledge that this is a question better determined by medical science and the families of the deceased than by themselves.