Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SophiaofPrussia t1_j671g0i wrote

Reply to comment by CasualSaturdays in yes this is a real bill that has been introduced by Ministry_of__Truth

I mean who cares about the practical problems? It’s coercive. It’s unconscionable. It’s fucking disgusting. I don’t care if it was easy-peasy and zero risk it’s still completely unethical and entirely inappropriate.

167

CasualSaturdays t1_j676fsj wrote

Oh I absolutely wasn’t trying to minimize the ethical issues with this. I was just point out that, bare minimum, it seems like the person who wrote this bill has no idea about the actual requirements for organ donation. Like there are reasons why someone living in an environment high-risk for infections and communicable diseases would be a poor candidate for donation, everything else aside.

52

RunNPRun0316 t1_j68hemm wrote

It is certainly persuasive but how is it coercive and unconscionable? If you accept these terms, you, you are granted a privilege. You earn that privilege upon a service that is is rendered upon your death: full stop.

You no longer have need of those organs. You will now give potential life and happiness to a complete stranger. You have moved from a very dark place to a place of altruism.

I will gladly donate my organs when I am gone. I’m sure that there are many people in prison who probably would have been easily persuaded to do so without receiving anything more than a sense of retribution. Now they could potentially see some benefit from their act of kindness.

If you want something to rail about, There are plenty of things to choose from in our “Justice system.” Private prisons, solitary confinement, bail, the war on drugs and prison labor all come readily to mind, but organ donation? Maybe I’m missing something but I don’t see it.

−1

relliott22 t1_j68mklk wrote

If I'm reading it right, it's not about becoming an organ donor, it's about donating an organ, straight up. I don't think it's an unethical offer to make either, but I think the terms are more stringent than simply becoming an organ donor on your license.

15

RunNPRun0316 t1_j6ckwpt wrote

My mistake. You are absolutely correct. That does make this a pretty thorny ethical debate on par with “The Trolley Problem.”

Still, it’s not “coercive”nor is it necessarily “unethical.” Coercion requires a threat. Telling someone that they will not be giving a specific privilege if they do not provide a specific service is not a threat; it is withholding an incentive that would otherwise not be available.

As long as it is 100% the decision of the incarcerated individual whether or not to provide the service, I don’t see the ethical problems. Of course, the program would have to be administered by some outside party with ethical standards.

I would love to see an actual ethicist way in on this subject.

1

relliott22 t1_j6crybw wrote

Yeah, I think I pretty much agree with that. I think that it's worth remembering that prison itself is terrible at accomplishing the goals that we set out for it. It isn't great at deterring crime. It isn't great at rehabilitating prisoners. It isn't even great at removing dangerous individuals from society. So if you're opposed to this, what would you like to see happen instead? The status quo isn't doing a great job.

2

BrokedownAlice69 t1_j68huhr wrote

I don’t see this as unethical at all. They are not forcing individuals to do anything. It’s their choice. And hell if they want to save a life and get out of jail early, good for them

−7

rosekayleigh t1_j68jxtt wrote

Maybe these individuals aren’t much of a danger to the public and should not be incarcerated at all if something like organ or bone marrow donation would make them eligible for early release. The problem is that they probably shouldn’t even be in the prison in the first place. This bill just piles more incentives on the state to incarcerate people for minor crimes. It’s not “good for them” at all.

14

BrokedownAlice69 t1_j68sgxb wrote

You just made some good points. But what you are insinuating that everyone from DAs, to judges to juries are all in on the corruption. I believe that only violent people, and people that are dangerous to others should be locked up.

As I was writing this I remembered the Amy dookhan drug scandal story. The fucking prosecutors office wouldn’t let these guys out even though the evidence in their cases was tampered with

−8

BlaineTog t1_j68wtw2 wrote

>But what you are insinuating that everyone from DAs, to judges to juries are all in on the corruption.

They certainly could be, and the public would always wonder if a given case had gone in favor of the prosecution because someone powerful wanted that defendant's organs.

But this doesn't even have to be a corruption thing. Once you put the idea in people's heads that more prisoners = more organ donations, you bias them in favor of more arrests, more convictions, and harsher prison sentences. You've told them, "even if this person is wrongfully convicted, at least some good might still come out of it." That's probably not enough to drastically shift a juror's decision, but it will shift some percentage of them where the juror was on the fence and that shift will add up to a lot of convictions across a whole state.

>I believe that only violent people, and people that are dangerous to others should be locked up.

Then why are we allowing those violent, dangerous people out early under any circumstances other than a pattern of behavior proving that they are no longer violent? Giving up a kidney or some bone marrow doesn't do that, especially not when there's a contractual payment rendered for your trouble.

2

[deleted] t1_j6743wd wrote

[deleted]

−41

Appropriate-XBL t1_j683sgj wrote

Do actually believe that or are you just being edgy for kicks? Serious question.

If you do believe that, can you elaborate on why it’s okay for society to do such a poor job of creating better people, and why state ownership of the bodies of these people should be a consequence of that?

9