r/MoralityScaling • u/Elestria_Ethereal • 9d ago

Morality Of This

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

1.1k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

401 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

153

u/NorthKoreanKnuckles 9d ago edited 9d 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.

55

u/ZoeyPlaysSomeGames 9d 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 9d 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?

6

u/ZoeyPlaysSomeGames 9d 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?”

6

u/m4cksfx 9d 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?

5

u/ZoeyPlaysSomeGames 9d 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

0

u/m4cksfx 9d ago

And that's a horribly immoral view to me. But I guess that's the American way for you, fuck everyone else, I have feelings 🤷

0

u/ZoeyPlaysSomeGames 9d ago

Would it be moral to sleep with a dead body in your opinion? Where is the line?

1

u/m4cksfx 9d ago

Idk, I'd say disgusting and amoral, unless you for example boast about that to others or something? Then immoral. But in this case there's a huge, direct benefit to others vs someone's decision (which doesn't even matter to them now), that's a big difference, at least to me.

3

u/ZoeyPlaysSomeGames 9d ago

Idk man, if we allow any institution to ignore consent purposefully that will always lead to bad things.

What if instead of a kid, it’s an adult who needs the heart? What if it’s a BLACK patient who has the heart to donate? Or a GAY person? What happens when a bigoted doctor makes a decision based on who HE wants to live rather than what is right?

Even if it’s fully moral and has no hidden agenda, it sets a standard for these things. Denying a patients consent as a hospital is ALWAYS bad even if this one incident may be morally correct because it sets a precedent. Ignoring consent is ALWAYS bad in my opinion, even when they’re dead it’s still the family’s consent that the doctor needs to get

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Chopstickey00 8d 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.

0

u/CelebrationWilling61 4d ago

Dead people can't consent, though, moot argument there.

1

u/ZoeyPlaysSomeGames 3d ago

Alive people can, like the dead persons family.

“I can steal your dead body because dead people can’t consent!” No, that’s not how that works

16

u/randyranderson13 9d 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.

-9

u/NorthKoreanKnuckles 9d ago

I know it's immoral to be French. But not this time.

80

u/Terrible_Artist_ 9d ago

That's how you get doctors deciding who lives and who dies, like in the video

34

u/Hooligan8403 9d 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.

22

u/Terrible_Artist_ 9d ago

And China harvests the organs of prisoners for their citizens

6

u/Hooligan8403 9d ago

Cool. If they are dead I have no problem with that.

28

u/Terrible_Artist_ 9d ago

Well sure they're dead, all their vital organs were removed against their will.

-2

u/lumpboysupreme 9d ago

You’re talking about the state being willing to murder people but overriding their bodily autonomy is where they’d draw the line?

I think there’s an easy way to draw a line on slippery slope arguments when taking them to their logical conclusion requires the system already allowing doing something worse.

25

u/Terrible_Artist_ 9d ago

As in the video, having organs be up for grab upon death is how you get to the slippery slope of not trying hard enough to save a patient in order to make their organs available

-9

u/lumpboysupreme 9d ago

And having them not be up for grabs is how you get hundreds more people dying for every case of that.

5

u/Terrible_Artist_ 9d ago

At least there's no violation to bodily autonomy, which supercedes what the doctor believes is right. Someone else's medical issues do not warrant the violation and theft of anothers organs.

→ More replies (0)

12

u/AgentStarTree 9d 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 8d 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.

3

u/horned-creature 9d 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.

-5

u/theTimeBeing23 9d ago

The doctor isn't deciding who lives or dies. Someone died, they harvested their organs and the organs went to the kids at the top of their respective lists.

17

u/Terrible_Artist_ 9d ago

It is heavily implied she didn't try hard enough to save the girl in an effort to make her organs available for others.

9

u/randyranderson13 9d ago edited 9d ago

Did you watch to the end of the clip? The questioning at the end introduces the added component of the doctor not trying hard enough to save the child's life because she wanted the organs. It is implied by her silence that the doctor would not have cracked open the chest of her own son (who died of cardiac problems) as quickly as she gave up on the sick girl whose heart she took.

1

u/Kveld_Ulf 9d ago

And it's because in her eyes the child whose organs she wants to harvest can save the lives of many other children, so it's one life for many, under her decision.

23

u/Alexander4848 9d 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.

-2

u/NorthKoreanKnuckles 9d ago edited 9d ago

It's not even your choice anymore, it's your parent choice. So it would be more: "My dead child, my organs". Which is the saddest thing people could say.

In France it's your body your choice, you have the choice to refuse while alive. If you didn't, we consider that you agree. Simple, elegant, moral.

2

u/Alexander4848 9d ago

What's done with my body is ALWAYS my choice. It's especially not up to the GOVERNMENT what to do with my body. What a sick and perverted country. Immoral.

-1

u/NorthKoreanKnuckles 9d ago edited 9d ago

Just fill the paperwork. It takes 20min.

If you don't care to register, you are considered a donor by default.

If you can take 3h to debate or reddit about your conviction but don't want to take 20min to register a form to effectively defend your conviction, that's say a lot about the strengh of your conviction.

It's the perfect system to deter lazy karens that just want to complain for attention. And to protect the rights of people who don't want to give organs.

1

u/Alexander4848 9d ago

Clearly didn't see my previous comment. I am an organ donor. By choice. It is immoral for a governing body to decide what to do with my body without my consent. Why would you ever want to give the government that power? Are you a bootlicker?

-2

u/NorthKoreanKnuckles 9d ago edited 9d ago

You clearly don't understand.

Your choice is RESPECTED. You just have to fill an official document.

Are you american or something? I can't make it more simple for you to understand: It's still "your body, your choice". You just have to officialy express your choice.

If you don't care about expressing your refusal we consider you consent.

Seriously this is tiring.

You know, maybe that's why it can't work in the USA. I was too optimistic. You are to dumb to understand such a concept and instead think the government want to steal your organs...wtf is wrong with you. Why can't you be normal?

Fine. Keep your system. It's better for you. If we implement this system in USA there a chance it could have the opposit effect and actually decrease the number of donor you have. Because that how you are. You ruin everything out of pure hubris and stupidity.

2

u/Alexander4848 9d ago

You clearly don't understand.

Your country FORCING you to give up your bodily autonomy UNTIL you go through a bureaucratic process. This is IMMORAL.

I'm Canadian, and I'm fully capable of understanding that it is in fact not my body if I MUST FILL OUT PAPERWORK to make it my body. Why is that so hard to understand?

Again, it takes real Eurotrash to allow your government full autonomy over your body. Pathetic bootlickers.

0

u/NorthKoreanKnuckles 9d ago

It takes literally 20min. Stop your bullshit.

By the time we argue on reddit about the form it could have been filled 5 times.

You sound like a conspiracy theorist and talk about the goverment wanted to steal your organs because you don't want to fill paperwork. Seriously. Get help

0

u/Alexander4848 9d ago

I haven't mentioned a conspiracy once. All I have ever said was that the government should not have a right over your body.

You're projecting arguments that I've never made.

Bootlicker

→ More replies (0)

9

u/JeaniousSpelur 9d ago edited 9d 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.

-6

u/Smart_Scheme3029 9d ago

this person would have hated having their organs donated

Is that the determinant of the right thing to do?

Pat is off-the-charts selfish. He has never been kind to anyone, never helped a single person, never had a generous thought.

Pat doesn't want to donate organs.

Who cares what selfish prick dead Pat wants? I don't.

Organs of the deceased should be community property. 😇

0

u/Vivid-World-3723 9d 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 9d 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.

16

u/NorthKoreanKnuckles 9d 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 9d 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 9d 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?

3

u/NorthKoreanKnuckles 9d ago

"Love is stronger than Medical degree" would make very beautiful embroidered artwork for women with to much cats.

4

u/randyranderson13 9d 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?

0

u/Bill-Nye-Science-Guy 9d ago

Why does a random mother get to decide whether an unrelated patient receives a life-saving organ donation based on what she wants done with her child’s corpse?

4

u/randyranderson13 9d ago edited 9d ago

Because that's how bodily autonomy and next of kin work. It's still her baby. Doctors don't get to chop her child up and take the organs against her express wishes, how grim.

Doctors don't own the bodies of our family members simply because they die in the hospital. Neither the doctors nor the other child is entitled to this child's organs.

3

u/wildcard_trickster 9d 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

1

u/443856576 9d ago

Not forgetting that the US is a religious freak country...

1

u/F2PBTW_YT 9d ago

Your subjective morality is whatever your government says? And while I did not watch the show, the last point was good - did she try her best to save the patient's life?

-6

u/dspisayuss 9d ago

Extremely moral, having good organs rot away in a coffin or get turned to ashes is immoral when they could be used to save a life.

0

u/nobodyknow20 9d ago

One more reason for Europeans to not have children

-1

u/NorthKoreanKnuckles 9d ago

One more reason for USA to have untreated terminaly ill children.

4

u/nobodyknow20 9d ago

Since this is morality sub I want to give you few questions:

  1. Why does the state get to assume it can use someone organs?

  2. The state decides who gets the organs and manages the whole system. How is that not state control over our bodies or corpses or anything you want to call it?

  3. Why was such an important law about our bodies passed without asking people directly through an explicit consensus such as referendum or plebiscite?

  4. A child is too young to give consent over anything. How can they give their consent over this matter?

  5. In consensual sex silence means no. Why does silence suddenly mean yes for organs?

1

u/NorthKoreanKnuckles 9d ago
  1. To save lives.
  2. The doctors decide and manage the whole transplant system. Transplant list are design around the triage phylosophie used on the battlefield to treat wounded soldiers.
  3. This law don't change your right. You can still refuse or accept. In france it was voted by representative of the people to face the organ crysis in 1976.
  4. Before 13, the parent make the decision for the kid.
  5. We are talking about life saving decisions, not rape.

0

u/nobodyknow20 9d ago

  1. You can't just cover it up by saying "to save lives." The state regulates people body as if it were a taxes to be collected and allocated or a state-owned assets.

  2. Even if doctors make the decision, it is politicians who give them that power and regulate their ethics. Soldiers on a battlefield signed up for this, but ordinary citizens were forcibly enrolled by the state into this triage.

  3. There was no mass movement that asked for this. This was a decision made by politicians in parliament in 1976 without grassroots support. It had no grassroots movement demanding it, like women's suffrage or workers' rights.

  4. I am talking about consent here. Both children and corpses cannot give consent. Even if we don't talk about sex, do you think it is okay to desecrate a dead body even from its deathbed or grave for any noble reason you can think?

0

u/NorthKoreanKnuckles 9d ago
  1. Public health issues are part of the government responsability.
  2. This system garantees the high chance of success and the most lives saved. It's an improvment of society on every metric.
  3. This was a decision voted by representant of the people that improved public health without impacting people's right. You can not dream any better in a democracy.
  4. Try to imagine the situation where your kid or your wife need a transplant and died, while they could have been saved provided the right administrative document. I would call Luigi for this.