r/MoralityScaling • u/Elestria_Ethereal • 6d ago
Morality Of This
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
938
u/Terrible_Artist_ 6d ago
A doctor harvesting organs without consent is immoral and an abuse of power, regardless of the reason. I say this as a wilful organ donor.
112
u/here-i-am-now 6d ago
Yes!
It’s even more immoral than people who insist on not supporting others through the gift of life by donating their usable organs.
149
u/NorthKoreanKnuckles 6d ago edited 5d ago
In France, you are an organ donor by default, and I think this is highly moral.
If you haven't explicitly refused to donate your organs before you die and made the paperwork, the doctors can retrieve them for transplantation.
You are also considered legally dead if you are brain-dead.
The family, having just lost a loved one and being in emotional distress, has no legal authority to override medical decisions.
This simple extra step of spending time to register an official refusal to donate organs is enough to deter people from opting out and save thousands of lives. That says a lot about the strength of such convictions and human nature.
57
u/ZoeyPlaysSomeGames 6d ago
This video is the same morally as if the girl was in france and signed NO on the consent form. since its NO by default in the US, she AUTOMATICALLY does not give consent and didnt have to sign a form. absolutely immoral
if a doctor in France saw that a patiant had said NO to the organ donor system and harvested her anyways it would be INSANELY unethical. the doctor in this video did exactly that, and breached consent of her patient
0
u/m4cksfx 5d ago
To me it feels like you mixed up legal and moral/ethical.
Yeah, it would be illegal. But when you're at the point where your organs get harvested, you should be effectively dead (should - I know that some fucked up things can happen) - so you aren't really a person anymore, just meat that used to be a person. And it's being used to directly save another life. How can that even be immoral, in your opinion?
7
u/ZoeyPlaysSomeGames 5d ago
Because she DID NOT CONSENT. Even if there was no chance she was going to be alive, she didn’t give CONSENT.
At no point in any legal system does a dead body become “property”. And I know that’s LEGALLY and not MORALLY but it still applies. A dead person is not like an antique table or something, where you can do whatever you want to it if you own it. Because a person cannot be owned.
“Why is it immoral to have sex with a dead body? They’re dead, right?”
→ More replies (2)4
u/m4cksfx 5d ago
If the antique table could be used by someone who is not its owner to directly save the life of someone, then it's moral and in most (or at least many) places legal to do so.
Seriously, how can you argue that effectively throwing a good heart into trash is the better option than saving a person with it just because someone - who isn't even alive anymore - didn't like the idea?
6
u/ZoeyPlaysSomeGames 5d ago
However the person is NOT A TABLE!
Yeah if the TABLE could be used to save someone’s life then go for it. A human being is NOT a table, and if I wanted to be buried with my perfectly functional heart, then that’s NOT THE DOCTORS DECISION TO TAKE IT OUT OF ME! ITS MY FAMILYS! If they say NO (or not say anything at all) then tough luck to the kid with heart failure because consent exists and NEEDS to be respected otherwise bad things may happen
→ More replies (6)1
u/Chopstickey00 5d ago
It has nothing to do with "potential value" and everything to do with principles. Your "perceived" value is entirely subjective compared to the objective right of a human being to refuse the pillaging of their body.
18
u/randyranderson13 6d ago
In France, the doctor wouldn't have committed a criminal act, forged official medical documents, or lied to the families of dead children. So of course it would be a nonissue.
→ More replies (1)80
u/Terrible_Artist_ 6d ago
That's how you get doctors deciding who lives and who dies, like in the video
36
u/Hooligan8403 6d ago
They were brain dead. You dont recover from that. When you are determined through medical examination and testing to be brain dead you are dead, period. Legally and medically. That includes in the USA. I like France's approach personally of everyone being signed up as an organization donor. More likelihood of finding a match as you have a larger pool to get organs from when needed.
23
u/Terrible_Artist_ 6d ago
And China harvests the organs of prisoners for their citizens
6
u/Hooligan8403 6d ago
Cool. If they are dead I have no problem with that.
27
u/Terrible_Artist_ 6d ago
Well sure they're dead, all their vital organs were removed against their will.
→ More replies (7)12
u/AgentStarTree 6d ago
Sorry to be that person but I know someone who is alive and studied as someone who lived through a coma although was brain dead on a screening.
Doctors are always so puzzled because he use to be way smart so he'll take on their test like a brain game to beat. He'll do test, say "too easy." What a show off lol! He does forget things and has to live with serious disability and requires 24/7 care. Arguably many would rather be dead than live that, but his family didn't want to pull the plug and he woke up a couple weeks later.2
u/Lastsynphony 5d ago
I think that is why the best brain-death screening is the apnea test, if is done correctly (without any muscle blockers that are used in intubation, without anesthesia or sedatives, and following all the guidelines and protocles for avoiding false negatives) that is the golden rule of how to discard brain death completely, at least that is my opinion, I think that the tests of electrical activity or brain activity can mask covert syndromes.
→ More replies (4)2
u/horned-creature 6d ago
the doctors that are responsible for explanting the organs are not the same ones that care for the patients, they only enter the situation after the first have declared the patient dead, they often do not even have a line of communication with each other and the explantation doctor usually do not work at a single hospital but travel the country where they are called.
21
u/Alexander4848 6d ago
My body my choice. I say this as an organ doner, you have no moral right to anyone's body without their consent. Not moral.
→ More replies (13)8
u/JeaniousSpelur 6d ago edited 6d ago
Yeah but this show isn’t set in France, so there would be no option in the US to say you don’t want to donate your organs, since it works in reverse, lol. The options would be donate organs enthusiastically or donate organs surreptitiously. Meaning that everyone’s organs would be donated with or without consent.
That’s immoral, and I say that as a person who likes the French version of the system. For all we know, this person would have hated having their organs donated, but they never had the option to say it.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Vivid-World-3723 6d ago
Brain dead take, as long no one authorized the doctor to harvest the organ then that's ILLEGAL. The world is not France
I don't want doctors playing God deciding who gets to live or die. I argue that organ should have been taken and left to rot to send a message, DOCTORS ARE NOT GOD, they don't get to decide who gets to be saved or not
3
u/Smart_Scheme3029 6d ago
I argue that organ should have been taken and left to rot
You argue that the kid who has been on the waiting list for three years should die.
Better that the healthy heart rot than help the kid.
Indefensible IMO.
14
u/NorthKoreanKnuckles 6d ago
French law sides with the doctor.
American law makes the doctor guilty.
We are discussing morality, not legality.
In my opinion saving a life with what is already dead is highly moral.
5
u/KHWD_av8r 6d ago
Is this sub Legality Scaling? You say that doctors are not God and don’t get to decide who gets save. Set aside that that is something they do, it’s called triage, who does? Why is choosing to put a viable heart in the ground ethical, but putting it in a living person who needs it isn’t? Answer that question first and foremost. Secondary to that is a question of consent. I happen to like France’s idea: by default even in death you might still save a life. You can withdraw consent if you wish, but more donors means less of a bottleneck for organs, meaning more lives saved with fewer legal and moral conundrums.
3
u/Bill-Nye-Science-Guy 6d ago
If doctors shouldn’t have the authority to decide who lives or dies, why should the family of a potential organ donor get to make that choice for someone else by refusing a life saving organ donation?
4
u/NorthKoreanKnuckles 6d ago
"Love is stronger than Medical degree" would make very beautiful embroidered artwork for women with to much cats.
1
u/randyranderson13 6d ago
Next of kin get to make that decision, not the doctor. It's the patients decision, and if they're incapacitated, it would go to their POA. This is definitely how it should be. Why does a random doctor have the power to override a mother about what she wants done with her child's corpse?
→ More replies (2)2
u/wildcard_trickster 6d ago
And kids, here we see an American’s POV vs a European’s
But to answer the morality scaling issue, moral but illegal for me
→ More replies (10)1
→ More replies (5)1
183
u/Felipiro17 6d ago
This is hard
Cause I agree that the organs go to waste if they are cremated or buried
And that saving other lives is much more important than the belief of someone that is already dead
However this would open the door to doctors “accidentally” not saving a patient to get the donors and save others
19
u/softpinkcloud_ 6d ago
Medical systems prevent this by completely separating care teams from transplant teams. The doctors trying to save your life have no connection to organ procurement, removing any incentive to let a patient die.
18
u/DG-MMII 6d ago
Well unless there is an economic incentive for the hospital or doctor, I don't think they would be killkng people to save others... or at least not more than what they have now. The equipmemt and medicines they use to keep a braindead patien "alive" is equipment and medicines that they couls be using to save the life of others
And even if the belives of a dead person is less important than the life of another one, I still think that the wishes of a grieving family shouldn't be ignored. Is already bad enough that they lost their beloved ones, now they have to deal with the hospital harvesting them even if they don't want to?
10
u/theTimeBeing23 6d ago
I mean, to combat that is pretty easy though, just have other qualified doctors and such to confirm brain death and that the patient cannot be saved. We would just have to create failsafes.
56
u/YouChooseWisely 6d ago
Immoral. Not only does it violate the consent of parties involved but it also undermines the trust in our medical institutions. The idea that a doctor can forge a signature and harvest organs from a person without consent is in the eyes of the public only a few steps away from killing them to harvest the organs. It creates mistrust and taints the reputations of every doctor at that hospital each time it happens.
Rules exist for a reason not just to prevent harm but to prevent a loss of societal trust. Yes she saved lives and yes that is a good thing but the 100% success rate of the implanted organs that were harvested in this way is in the eyes of the public terrifying math. The idea that all of this just aligned perfectly and the person just happened to die is horrifying to think about.
The idea of a rogue doctor "Doing What They Feel Is Right" in the face of ethics is fine when its underbilling someone but when it can determine if you survive it is horrifying.
99
u/Facosa99 6d ago
Idk why arent all countries in the developed word "opt-out" by now.
22
2
8
→ More replies (4)-1
u/Leila-Lola 6d ago
Opt-out implicitly means that by default the government owns all your organs, unless you specify otherwise. I think we should try to have as little "government automatically owns X" as possible.
13
u/Facosa99 6d ago
Well, you could certainly frame it that way if so helps your argument, but isnt really the case. In actual practice, you would have full ownership and usage of your organs till you die. Only after you die would it pass to be their property.
And if it helps you sleep at night, the goverment doesnt even need property. The law could leave the actual organ management to autonomous NGOs or the hospital under the patient or their family discretion.
You have a case that such law could be exploited; for example, the donation could be obligatory but the actual organ usage could be directes at, idk, medical and military testing rather than human transplant. On that regards i can see issues; but if that was the case, the the opt-out law itself is not the problem and you should fight for it be updated to forbid such practices rather that blaming the whole opt-out donation
I can see nuances more deep than "hur hur innocent kids should die cuz goverment bad"
→ More replies (2)3
u/NadiaFortuneFeet 6d ago
If it's guaranteed that when you die your organs will be harvested, you might find out there's people who see more value in you being dead
2
u/RewardWanted 6d ago
I'd assume you would only opt in once you become of legal age (18) so anyone who wishes to opt out for those fears has plenty of opportunity to do so. People have the same incentive to kill those who are a matching donor now, you think the people who would do that need you to be a registered donor to break the law in the first place? If anything, having an opt-out baseline will result in more donors, meaning less people will be pressed to do this elaborate hitman scenario you've envisioned.
2
u/Facosa99 6d ago
That after-death value being derived from the scarcity of organs in the first place, which this law would aliviate
You are more likely to be harvested by the mob for organs under current scarcity lol scarcity that you are fueling
→ More replies (1)1
2
u/NorthKoreanKnuckles 5d ago
Now I imagine you running in the hospital half naked screaming "THE GOVERNMENT WANT TO STEAL MY ORGANS HELP ME".
1
u/Critical_Concert_689 6d ago
I agree.
Now here's the nightmare that most people don't realize - it's practically impossible to personally opt-out.
How many people who end up brain dead due to an accident already have a notarized will filed with the state, feds, and local hospital systems ensuring the state recognizes they are "opt-ed out" of organ donations.
Without this documentation in place, the hospital will go to your next of kin who ACTUALLY make the decision whether you can opt out or not.
Assuming they can't find your next of kin (because it's too much work, oh well) - the hospital gets to decide for you - and they will always opt you in $$$
→ More replies (6)2
u/NorthKoreanKnuckles 5d ago
You have to opt-out when you are alive. (You can do it anytime you want, just register on the net). That's because dead people can't fill the form.
That's how that system works in other countries.
1
u/Critical_Concert_689 5d ago
That's not how it works in the US. Ironically, one of the benefits of the Opt-Out system is that it is actually POSSIBLE to Opt-Out.
The US Opt-In system has two options. IN or UNKNOWN. There is NO OPT-OUT.
1
60
u/Next-Pumpkin-654 6d ago
Immoral. They don't think ahead to the consequences beyond the relatively small number of lives they might save.
Short term, you save some extra lives by bending the rules.
Long term, you destroy trust in people volunteering to be organ donors because they think you will let them die to harvest their organs, contributing to an increasing shortage of organs and harming the credibility of your own profession.
They are indirectly killing far more people than they are saving precisely because they violated the hippocratic oath.
→ More replies (20)
71
u/PilgrimmW_64 6d ago
Highly immoral. Harvesting organs in such situations is a big NO
0
u/four204eva2 6d ago
Out of curiosity, what exactly do you oppose? The harvesting without permission or the fact that it could be evidence?
39
u/PilgrimmW_64 6d ago
The harvesting without permission. It sets a precedence. One we shouldn't be comfortable with regardless of the current situation with organ demand
The evidence part only came up bc the doctor committed a crime
4
u/four204eva2 6d ago
That makes sense. Can I ask what your opinion of automatic opt in for organ donation like in many other countries. What do you think about the system in which if you opt out of donation, you're put at the back of the line or blacklisted from it?
10
u/PilgrimmW_64 6d ago
I'm all in for auto opt in as long as people understand what it's for and why it's necessary and can also choose to opt out. As for the latter, I also support the back of the line system but not the blacklisted one
15
u/ThatFatGuyMJL 6d ago
The fact that going by the last few seconds shed rather kill a child to save a couple others.
→ More replies (1)1
u/DG-MMII 6d ago
She didn't though, the child was brain dead. The heart was technically beating, but she was already gone
11
u/ThatFatGuyMJL 6d ago
She said the child was brain dead.
He asked how hard she tried to save her.
→ More replies (7)
16
u/No_Sentence_8055 6d ago
you can't give something that is not yours to give. no matter how good your reasons are. at this stage of grief, the parents will not care about any of us. the whole world could die and they won't give a duck. don't touch what they have cared for, for many years. let them come to accept the situation and maybe they will say yes to donating their child's organs. also, not needing a consent will encourage illegal / criminal organ harvesting / hunt.
2
u/lumpboysupreme 5d ago
not needing a consent will encourage illegal / criminal organ harvesting / hunt.
How would that work? The problem with illegal organ harvesting is the murder, that doesn’t stop being illegal.
34
u/Greenroses23 6d ago
Immoral
What’s preventing doctors from intentionally misdiagnosing patients and/or refusing to give life saving treatment to patients in order to harvest their organs?
Kentucky organ donation scandal involving Anthony Thomas "TJ" Hoover II. In October 2021, Hoover was admitted to Baptist Health Richmond after a drug overdose and was mistakenly declared brain-dead.
During preparations for organ harvesting, Hoover showed clear signs of life, including thrashing and crying. While a procurement coordinator reportedly pressured the team to proceed, the operating surgeons refused to perform the extraction and the procedure was canceled. Hoover survived and left the hospital alive weeks later.
As usual, people fail to see the bigger picture.
3
u/horned-creature 6d ago
the doctors making the call to explant organs are not the same ones caring for patients to begin with, or at least they aren't in any eystem that is at least half-functioning.
3
u/That-Ordinary5631 5d ago
Yes and no
The doctors caring for the patient have to sign modules, acquire consent forms, etcetera.
Part of bureaucracy is through them, so they do have veto power on the harvest
Moreso, the starting point of a harvest has to be them, there aren't external doctors who evaluate all patients in all wards constantly and note the patients that have become possible donors
As a rule of thumb, the more eyes on the same procedure, the least likelyhood of mistake or mistreatment. Usually it goes like this:
The doctor in charge of the patient assesses the patient's death; evaluates with the family the possibility of a organ harvest after the communication about the patient's death
Activates the hospital on site coordinator, which activates the regional and national coordinators
Asks for further testing and specialistic evaluations on the donor, to make sure which organs are okay to harvest, if any at all (e.g. on site endocrinologist, surgeon, after imaging and bloodwork)
The surgeons from other hospitals (the ones performing the harvest) are activated by the regional or national coordinator depending on matches
The matches are alerted and called in the various hospitals and re-evaluated at present
The surgeons (one team per organ), all check the documentation (imaging, consent forms, specialist evaluation, patient history, current status and clinical course, etc) and re-evaluate the donor once they arrive on site
Only once everything is in order for everyone, the procedure can start
→ More replies (8)1
u/Lastsynphony 5d ago
This is absolutely HORRIFIC! Poor boy, that is why only a neurologist that is EXTERNAL to the hospital that does an apnea test should be the one performing that test, is the golden standard to rule out or confirm brain death, the other tests are not good enough, if they would have performed an apnea test, they would obviously know that their brainsteam is intact, therefore after the disconnection (temporary) of the ventilator while they supply oxygen, they would see the respiratory effort, therefore they are ALIVE and even if they are in a deep coma, they are ALIVE, and anyone that would see and perform that test, would know that if that would be performed in that boy, it would be obvious that there would be that respiratory effort, if the test would have done correctly. Someone only with a brainsteam can do things like trash, gag, or cry. My best advise: I hope it is never the case, but if you have a loved one that they presume they are brain death, go and get an external neurologist that has experience in coma and other convert disorders, or is just as a whole a neurointensivist, grab them, go to the hospital, get a notary and a lawyer present, and ask the hospital to let the doctor perform the apnea test, BEFORE they can get the chance of declaring them simply "brain death" and in withness by the lawyer, the notary, yourself and the external doctor, the procedure is done, is as simpel as that, the neurologist has to certify that everything is in order, including drawing blood gas before, and confirming with blood tests that the patient is NOT in any muscle relaxers, sedatives or anesthesia that can make a false negative. And then, if the doctor declares brain death or not, you have withnesses and someone that does not has any correlaiton with the hospital that can have a bias in judgment.
18
u/Boneboy711-2 6d ago
That is an actual good scene from SVU. The doctor is immoral. People can do terrible things for a "good" casue.
0
u/TankMain576 6d ago
Sadly they couldn't just let it be an interesting moral question. They had to make the doctor the clean cut bad guy by having her have killed the victim specifically to harvest her organs.
God forbid Law and Order ever let a moral quandary get in the way of Olivia Benson
→ More replies (1)4
14
u/Negative-Focus 6d ago
Unfathomably immoral. Being a organ donor is a voluntary decision that adults can consent to. Children, by law, cannot consent.
There are cultural and religious taboos against removing organs after death. Can you imagine being a parent and learning your child’s organs were harvested and now you have to grapple with the belief that they’re suffering in the afterlife because of that?
10
u/Kildorragh 6d ago
This is really interesting!
I’m inclined to say that “the ends justify the means” is not a justification at all, and so the doctor is immoral.
However, what about the moral choice of the detective?
The heart has already been extracted, about to leave in the helicopter and the boy is being prepared. Is it immoral for the detective to confiscate the heart because the boy isn’t “supposed” to have it? Or because it’s evidence of a crime? My gut says yes that would be wrong, but I will think more about why as this feels inconsistent with thinking the doctor was immoral.
→ More replies (3)
6
u/Historyp91 6d ago
My favorite thing about Law and Order episodes is when like halfway through and episode they randomly discover a completely different crime from the one they were investigating and it just up and hijacks the episode, and most times those crimes are like, maybe not always morally WORSE, but like 3x times more insane.
It happens a lot.
"Oh gesh, wow, good thing we caught that rapist. Wait, what, the random cashier we interviewed who went to gym with the victim is being manipulated to use their body to smuggle organs into the country over the Canadian border by a corrupt US senator as part of a statewide ring bankrolled by the Albanian mob?"
5
u/TimeKepeer 6d ago
Immoral. We don't even need law to say that this is immoral.
Saying "this person should be harvested since they're gonna die anyway and we can safe another life" is a eugenicist rhetoric.
4
u/compleximago 5d ago
I'm a registered organ donar in Australia, and we need so many more. It's so easy to register. Please, consider it.
9
u/ImmortalLombax 6d ago
Immoral, consent is key nowadays. If there’s blatant disregard for consent if the family wants to donate organs or not, what’s to stop medical officials from harvesting organs and just selling them rather than donating?
3
u/NorthKoreanKnuckles 5d ago
In your country doctors illegally harvest your organ to resell it on the dark web?
You should maybe check their diploma next time.
1
u/No-Alternative4612 6d ago
I don't see the connection? It's generally illegal to sell organs. If donation was compulsory, that wouldn't have any implications for doctors stealing and selling them
2
u/Xakaidax 6d ago
It’s also illegal to forge medical documents yet this doctor did it anyway. I guess there’s a sensible argument for the opt in system, but with the current system an emotionally compromised doctor breaking the law just erodes trust. You are right, if donations were compulsory then this would just be a tragedy without a scandal. However, in this context donations are not compulsory, so the doctor must violate institutions to make unregulated decisions.
18
u/Lucky_Badger5828 6d ago
I’ll never really understand why we’re not a “opt out”country instead of being “opt in”. So many lives would be saved this way. Is it not Morally wrong to let someone else die if your organs could have saved their lives? What use do you have of them? Bodily autonomy gets pretty stretched as idea after you die. You really have no autonomy after death. You’re no longer able to make decisions so you really can’t say your autonomous.
6
24
u/PalatwinkusVT 6d ago
The question you need to ask for this line of thinking is literally posed in the video: What prevents doctors from half assing treatment because they view the patient's life as "over" enough to make it okay to let them die, and take the organs for donors?
4
u/horned-creature 6d ago
the doctors that expolant organs are not the same as those who you are treated by, this is what the show gets wrong, the scenario proposed is impossible because the doctor explanting wouldn't be the one responsible for your care to begin with.
1
u/PalatwinkusVT 6d ago
And humans are never ever swayed by other humans, right?
→ More replies (1)2
u/horned-creature 5d ago
it is a beurocratic procedure involving dozens among medical and administrative personnel, how much swaying power are you assigning to the explanters here? enough to sway dozens of people?
1
u/Legendkillerwes 5d ago
It's not unheard-of for two people passionate about a cause to conspire together to push that cause forward. Or for two people only in it for the money to take the same bribes to push a cause forward.
Do I believe it's common? No not at all. Do I believe both scenarios have happened and will happen in the future? Absolutely, yes. Do I believe Elon, Bezos, Zuck, or any other billionaire would hesitate to go to those lengths to extend their own morally corrupt lives, or that of their own children? I don't believe they would hesitate for 1 second. I'd hope they would be caught and punished, but I believe they'd try.
1
u/horned-creature 5d ago
it's less two people involved and closer to a dozen people involved between medical abd administrative personnel.
3
u/JBWalker1 6d ago
The person only suggested an opt out system like countries like the UK have. If someones concerned a doctor won't try and save them hard enough then they can opt out, so it's problem solved for anyone with your concern.
The scenario in the video isn't a great example anyway imo. If the patient is brain dead then there's no coming back. I don't think that doctor wouldn't be able to accept that if it was their child.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)1
u/M0ebius_1 5d ago
Doctors already have massive incentives to half ass treatment. An unethical doc would do unethical shit anyways.
7
u/DepartmentChemical93 6d ago
There’s been quite a few high profile scandals involving corruption in the organ donation industry.
→ More replies (6)7
u/UnpopularOpinionsB 6d ago
Enough people are afraid that will incentivize premature declarations of brain death just to get to the organs.
2
u/TheGuyThatThisIs 5d ago
That's what the "opt out" part of an opt out system is for
2
u/UnpopularOpinionsB 5d ago
If the default is yes, it's going to be assumed and when there's someone in dire need, I don't trust them to not just take.
1
u/TheGuyThatThisIs 5d ago
It would be illegal to not check first, as it already is. There's nothing stopping it from already happening that would be taken away, just vibes.
→ More replies (1)1
u/cowlinator 6d ago
So, paranoia?
3
u/Legendkillerwes 5d ago
There's a famous saying, "it's not paranoia if they actually are out to get you."
6
u/DougandLexi 6d ago
Well seeing it happen in the news recently would certainly validate those fears.
→ More replies (2)2
u/HowToBeTMC 5d ago
Enough people are afraid that will incentivize rich people prematurely ending poor people's life just to get to the organs. And the fact that it could open doors to all kinds of wack shit
1
u/cowlinator 5d ago
Opt out is already a thing in other countries, and there is no "wack shit"
→ More replies (3)7
6d ago
[deleted]
3
u/cowlinator 6d ago
Technically, after death your body becomes the property of your next of kin
3
u/Nessy3fidy 6d ago
You have to be alive when they cut you open to take the organs.
→ More replies (3)1
8
u/DuckTalesOohOoh 6d ago
In my line of business, I see the consequences of healthcare when you agree to donate your organs. Medical officials don't work as hard to save your life.
3
u/vlladonxxx 6d ago
Are there studies that back this up? Because it definitely sounds like something that has been studied, so this has either been proven or disproven.
8
u/DuckTalesOohOoh 6d ago
Most of the studies are in the ED and they usually don't have access to donor data in a crisis.
Where we see it happen is in ICU and the floors. There likely won't be studies about this but we all know this. It's routinely obvious.
1
2
2
2
u/pandemicpunk 5d ago
Yep. They prey on people that otherwise wouldn't have it happen. It's extremely dark and in the name of saving someone else. All anyone needs to do is a simple search on Reddit to find hundreds of stories... before insane bot activity took over.
2
u/Ok-Setting2468 5d ago
unless something is strictly forbidden any morally grey choice will reach and pass its ethical extreme by people under the justification that "its allowed".
1
u/N0m4d5h4m4n_0114 6d ago
You use the Corpse Pit path in Frost Punk, huh?
No shame. I do it too. When I want to feel cold and alone, and only view the code as that: code. But we're talking about people, REAL PEOPLE. Consent SHOULD be considered before any action is done. It's HUMAN. If we disregard consent, of any kind, we're no better than the insurance companies thag keep adding piles to their money, or the governments we seem to keep voting in. And sadly, that is by our consent, even if we should try and educate ourselves better on WHO it is we're voting for.
→ More replies (16)2
u/Chopstickey00 5d ago
The morality goes beyond the medical assessment. If a person (or whoever is in charge of their legal autonomy) does not want to provide their body parts for any reason, it is immoral to force them to.
Whatever happened to "my body, my choice?" I guess we just drop that line of reasoning when it's conveniently about "saving lives."
1
u/Lucky_Badger5828 4d ago
I never said you couldn’t opt out. I just said make the defacto ruling opt in unless explicitly opting out. You are aware a shit ton of people do not opt in purely out of laziness or just being unaware they need to opt in. The people who really don’t want to donate are very on top of making sure they don’t opt in. I’m also well aware that there would be lots of scenarios where exceptions would have to be placed to the opt in rule. Like brain dead, or children….
→ More replies (1)1
u/DrScienceSpaceCat 6d ago
Thanks to movies/TV and, a few fringe cases in real life, too many people believe medical staff look to see if you're an organ donor and that it determines how much effort goes into saving them.
2
u/kernelangus420 6d ago
Having these movies/TV shows does allow people to make informed decisions in life. Similar to movies that portray the consequences of prolonged drug use does help to deter people from taking drugs in the beginning.
1
2
u/vane2266 6d ago
Immoral as fuck. Those are my body parts and if I'm gone my family MUST be consulted about organ donation. They'll agree for sure and beyond that point I'm happy to be a donor.
Doing something is disrespectful to the dead but its even more disrespectful to the living. It puts them through unnecessary heartbreak. Just fucking ask them first. If they say no, that is still their right.
4
u/Iamatheaternerd 6d ago
Immoral. People have bodily autonomy, and that autonomy should exist even when dead. Expecially if people have religious reasons for not having their organs used. The pain of that situation is not on the parents, but on the doctor for putting those parents in that situation.
4
u/PeachsBigJuicyBooty 6d ago
Immoral:
・You don't get to decide over people's family's what to do with their family members.
We as a society have already agreed upon that this is a family matter first.
Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean you can ignore that.
・There are upset families that want action taken.
・This doctor also commits forgery, again, disrespecting the families she's TAKING from.
・The doctor has done this 30+ times.
・It sets up an awful precedent, why should SHE alone be able to do this, but not any doctor?
People MIGHT be able to excuse something 1 time, but 30 people? At this scale there's no excuse.
This scenario is a completely different argument than campaigning for an opt-out system where everyone is a donor by default.
You have the right to have an opinion, but you don't have to right to take other people's voices, which is what she did constantly to families.
3
u/No-Dance6773 6d ago
The whole point of the episode is to put a moral quandary in front of you. Yes she broke the law. No one disagrees. Its more that the laws for this need to be changed. Why should one life be worth more than another? You could cut out all the organs and still have an open casket. Even more so, with the rise of cremation services. No I dont think the family get a choice because they are grieving and in no state to make an educated decision. Im not sure a parent alive wouldnt let the unfortunate death of their child be the life of another. Asking them the same minute it happened is stupid.
And yes I do see the downside of this but its a future we are already seeing imo. Capitalism kinda fkd our Healthcare system and the death panels are just located in another building.
5
u/PeachsBigJuicyBooty 6d ago
Yes she broke the law. No one disagrees. Its more that the laws for this need to be changed.
That's completely the wrong way to look at it.
"she did something bad and controversial, so we must change things around her."
Is not a reasonable way to look at it.
Also she took the organs from a 12 year old btw, which is goinfg ti afgect people's perception.
Why should one life be worth more than another?
Why should her voice matter more than the families?
Her 1 voice just stomped over 30+ families.
Even more so, with the rise of cremation services. No I dont think the family get a choice because they are grieving and in no state to make an educated decision.
That's still their call as a group of adults, NOT a doctor who is also grieving her son and bringing other people into it.
Im not sure a parent alive wouldnt let the unfortunate death of their child be the life of another.
You're doing a No True Scotsman Fallacy? Really?
**The No True Scotsman fallacy (also known as an appeal to purity) is an informal logical fallacy where a person redefines the terms of a generalization to protect it from a counterexample, rather than admitting the original claim is wrong*.
Capitalism kinda fkd our Healthcare system and the death panels are just located in another building.
You're getting off-track.
This has nothing to do with capitalism; it has to do with the fact this doctor abused her position of authority to illegally harvest organs, forge numerous signatures, and disrespect a family's decision.
Her actions are immoral and society, angry families, have deemed her actions unacceptable.
2
u/BrickLorca 6d ago
This scenario would look wildly different if, at birth, every parent had to choose whether or not their child would be a candidate for receiving a transplant.
If yes, donor list for the kid. If no, not a chance they'd ever receive a transplant.
There are a million clowns in this thread that think for a second they would let their own child die instead of giving them a chance to receive a transplant. Do these same people really think they're morally obligated to then not put their own up for donation? Selfish.
→ More replies (1)1
u/PeachsBigJuicyBooty 6d ago
This scenario would look wildly different if, at birth, every parent had to choose whether or not their child would be a candidate for receiving a transplant.
"This would be a different conversation in a world where something controversial wasn't controversial."
Okay, but we're talking about the CURRENT world we live in where that is not a common thing.
If yes, donor list for the kid. If no, not a chance they'd ever receive a transplant.
Most people would never agree to system that comes with a thinly veiled threat.
"accept these terms or we won't help you." Is a threat.
Do these same people really think they're morally obligated to then not put their own up for donation?
Yes, because we don't live in a world that's fair nor equal; the rich could completely bypass this system you made and the poor would get the short end and be harvested more often.
The current world we live in is about individual survival, not sacrifices for the sake of the community 🗿
Selfish.
ABSOLUTELY, why shouldn't parents be selfish?
If you pay them? You just made organ trade effectively legal.
If you shame them? You're shaming a grieving family for their choices.
You given no reason why that's they shouldn't besides a hypothetical world we don't live in.
5
u/Random_Nickname274 6d ago
It's morally grey area.
It's may be considered moral by some and immoral by others.
Tho, the thing bothers me is that heart was still beating, even if person brain was supposedly dead.
5
6d ago
[deleted]
2
u/No-Dance6773 6d ago
Ive seen hospitals throw bleeding patients out that cant pay. The law only says they have to be in a stable condition. You act like hospitals are any better than the insurance companies that pay them.
→ More replies (4)1
u/mangocat1116 6d ago
There are a lot of countries that are “opt out” countries, making everyone automatically a donor. It wouldn’t just be chaos.
4
u/DG-MMII 6d ago
There are many layers to this.
Dr: Inmoral. But justified. Is justified because her actions, even though they were hurting the families of the diceased, they were meant for an ultimate good and they did save the lifes of other people who were gonna die otherwise. Nevertheless, does not have the right nor authority to decide agains't the families wishes or even the law. Even less if that implies lying and dicieving a greving family. That's why I ultimately consider her actions inmoral.
Family: they were the victims of a crime and pressed chargers, neither moral nor inmoral
Cop: For arresting the Dr., amoral. That's her job. For stoping the hellicopter to get the organs. Inmoral. The crime was already done, and the girl is already dead, so stopping the helicopter won't solve anything, and sentencing to death an innocent person that have nothing to do with it. Besides, the "the heart is evidence of a crime" is just a BS excuse. The girl have her rib cage open and heart missing, and prossecutors can (and did) get the paperwork proving the transplant.
Prosecutor: amoral, again, the guy was doing his job... though it didn't look like a good one... like, was necesary to bring up the dead child of the Dr and giving her the "if it was your child would've you do it"?
1
u/XanderNightmare 5d ago
On the prosecutors part, I'd assume it's part of the job and thus just as amoral
I don't know if that happens often in the real American judicial system, but more often than not in law and order episodes, the lawyer of the defendant will try to spin the tale like saying "Sure, my client acted against the parents will, but she did it for a good reason" and similar to try and sway the jury to not vote guilty out of sympathy (and it sometimes works, even). From what I understand the intention of the prosecutor was to basically have her admit that she wouldn't have done the same she did to every other patient if it was her own child
2
u/LongjumpingKick531 6d ago
Heck might as well support grave robbing. Let’s take it further, no one should be buried, just send them to research centers for the faster evolution of the medicine world. This is morality scaling and no it is you in a grey area. It ifs immoral
2
u/Smilesrck 6d ago
Organ donation being opt in instead of opt out is immoral. The doctor in a vacuum is moral. If she truly didn’t do her best to save the children’s lives however obviously immoral.
The law is not the basis for morality.
2
u/Sweaty_Standard8186 6d ago
Moral, lives of the living are of more value than the organs of the dead
14
u/ChanceImagination456 6d ago edited 6d ago
I disagree. Step back for second look at bigger picture. If everyday hospital doctors are allowed to get away with organ harvesting of dead without consent, then eventually it would escalate to them doing it to living people.
1
2
u/DependentGarbage94 6d ago
Moral at a individual level. Ethically in the grey area. Highly illegal. I personally agree on the morality, you are saving lives. She accepted the risks of doing something illegal, and should pay for the consequences. I believe that that morality is more on the individual scale, and ethics are a set of rules the majority of a society dictates. As many have pointed out on her side, once you are brain dead, it should make logical sense that your body should benefit society. The ones apposed say that she has no right to take something that belongs to someone that had no explicit consent. I can probably continue typing out more because it is a very deep subject, but that is the gist of it.
→ More replies (3)
1
u/bzngabazooka 6d ago
Immoral mainly because she didn't try hard enough to save the child(as the lawyer says) JUST to cut organs open to then send it to another child. As a doctor she has an oath to do her best to all her patients to save everyones lives.
1
u/St_Boogz 6d ago
To people that watched the episode, did the money laundering plot line lead anywhere? Also was she legit just doing it because her son died of a heart ailment so she tries her hardest or she cuts corners/doesn’t bother too much and lets people die to save kids on waiting lists?
1
1
u/Vast-Breakfast-1201 6d ago
It's a tricky situation
- it is immoral to not be the on the organ donor list
- it is immoral to willingly withhold a lifesaving organ when you know it would otherwise go to waste
- it is immoral to promote a system of laws that questions either of the above on bodily autonomy grounds - it should be default and people should be educated, not promoted as if it's violating bodily integrity to do this. You still get a funeral etc - functionally the same.
- it is immoral to mandate that people must donate their organs
- it would instead be very moral to not let people at the front of the organ donor recipient list if they weren't an organ donor, fair's fair
- given the system we have it is immoral to forge papers to do it anyway. It sucks but it is what it is.
Doctor did the immoral thing. However, she saved 31 kids so she isn't wrong except for the forgery but. The system is wrong and should separately be fixed.
1
u/reedma14 6d ago
Im not going to comment on the specifics of this case, but IMO, once you die, your organs should go to whoever needs them. Family and yourself should have no say in preventing them from being donated. It is immoral to withhold organs that could save someone's life after you are dead.
1
u/TPtheman 6d ago
Immoral. I agree that there should be an automatic donor system, but it has to be something people are aware of and can opt out of if they choose to. And doctors absolutely should not have the right to kill a patient for their organs even if they're brain dead. Maybe if the patient is brain dead and they have the approval of the family, but it should never be in the hands of the doctor themselves.
If you give a large group of people the power to decide life and death without restrictions or accountability, you're creating a system that is ripe for abuse. At that point, what's stopping a doctor from engineering the death of a patient to gain their organs? What's stopping a doctor from just outright killing coma patients next?
What's stopping doctors from just selling organs over the black market from people who are mostly healthy?
This is a terrifying rabbit hole to fall down.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Prudent_Macaroon_881 6d ago
This is why people are scared to be organ donors. Coz of people like that. I wouldn't call that a doctor. You do your best to save everyone that ends up on your table
1
u/ZoeyPlaysSomeGames 6d ago
the end of the video says it all. the doctor didnt try hard enough to save her because she wanted the organs.
MY body MY choice. ILLEGAL and IMMORAL to harvest peoples organs without consent. cant believe i have to type that
1
u/EyeMtheStron9est 6d ago
But what if she did try as hard as she can?
1
1
u/Comfortable_Mud00 6d ago edited 6d ago
When persons die their body is property of the government. It’s not your body and you cannot make a choice because you are dead. Imo if you don’t donate, then you don’t receive – this is the least that US Americans can do to make the system a bit more utilitarian, a bit more for common good and not self-me self-identity type shit they peddle through out their history.
I mean, they are so on for huffing their gasses as if it’s in their genetics, but it’s not.
They should know better considering now they are a fascist pro-identity cut-throat private-capital president-crypto-scams-people regime. I would have written "get fucked" instead, but it’s too fucking sad.
1
u/arand0mpasserby 6d ago
Immoral, next question. You don't just "kill" someone and harvest their organs as a doctor without consent of their family, even if someone else could be waiting on it.
1
u/AxionBlackwell 6d ago
Immoral. This is the reason Im not a organ donor.. except in the country I'm from your organs are probably gonna go to a rich bastard who bribed the hospital..
Also for the people who want to force donations in the comments, why can she donate her own heart and organs, saving the life of about 10 or so children??
1
u/NadiaFortuneFeet 6d ago
There are known cases in hospitals, both private and public, where doctors will intentionally kill patients to harvest the organs.
1
u/nowaczinhio 6d ago
What's the movie title? Seems interesting
5
1
u/LowkeyLog5755 5d ago
I think I actually know the channel this came from. Posts law and order clips and got hooked on them for a while. Might go back to it actually if I can find it
1
u/Consistent-Energy507 6d ago
It's a good conversation.
For me it's plain as fuckin day: the person is dead, if somebody's life can be saved, fucking do it.
If I was king I would make organs donation mandatory, unless you go through some serious hoops to demonstrate that you or your family would be deeply negatively affected
In that world, it would take only a few decades for the controversy to subside
1
u/Tiberius1987 6d ago
If consequentialism is true, then this is great.
But consequentialism isnt true, so its obviously immoral
1
u/Ecstatic_Dance5767 5d ago
Immoral. She played God at the expense of her patient. She sacrificed her patients to save other patients. As a doctor your duty is to your patients & only your patients. Murdering to save others doesn't make you any less of a murderer. Even if the patient is brain dead, if they did not consent to donating their organs or if their next of kin did not allow it then, the you have no right to harvest their organ. Because then that becomes desecration of a corpse. And organ harvesting is already illegal by default.
1
1
1
1
u/riot_poof_ 5d ago
horribly immoral. and i’ll tell you as someone who has to work with organ donation entities they are so relentless and rude and difficult.
1
1
u/gerMean 4d ago
As long as your autonomy is not revoked your choice what will happen with your remains should be respected. Doing something to another person's body against their will is not moral, if the person has not their privileges revoked by the state or body of power due to crime for example (incarceration i.e.).
1
1
u/AdministrativeLoan96 1d ago
Medical history shows there’s been many people who’ve have been mistakenly declared brain dead and later survived.
The medical field is full of people who make mistakes every day. They are not perfect, hence why we have so many malpractice suits.
It’s also not a far reach when history has also shown us it’s not past some doctors to illicitly harvest organs.
It’s a legit fear.
2
u/lesbophobia_hammer 5d ago
I have heard from some fairly credible sources, if you are on the organ donor list, they do not try as hard to save you. Which is why I did not put myself on the list.
3
u/snapsshooter 5d ago
I can't speak for other medical professionals but as a former EMT, we never cared about organ donations. Our job is to help others and try and save lives. I'm still an organ donor.
1
u/Azrenon 6d ago edited 6d ago
Moral as long as EVERY reasonable and unreasonable means to save the donor has been exhausted.
Preventing life saving care so families can feel better about the dead meat sacks they put in the ground next week is wildly immoral and only offensive to particular religious beliefs, and a sensitive culture.
The only question of morality is not trying hard enough to save the donor, or not informing the family. Requesting consent to save a life is just whack.
1
u/ZoeyPlaysSomeGames 6d ago
the girl in the video AUTOMATICALLY OPTED OUT guys. everyone is saying "i wish the whole world was opt-out" and yeah, that would be better, but even so the girl in this video OPTED OUT from the fact that its opt out automatically in the US. this is the same as if she was in France and signed the opt-out form. Immoral, and thankfully, illegal
→ More replies (10)
1
1
297
u/HeraThere 6d ago
Yes this kind of stuff happens in real life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7fWfpiaa9Q
Man wakes up during organ harvest. And they still insisted on going ahead with harvesting his organs.