Do you have a problem with someone demanding money for an organ? Let's say someone decides to donate his/her organs after death, but only in exchange of financial compensation for his/her living relatives or for a designated person; or someone is in urgent need of money and decides to donate an organ; or someone just wants money for a donated organ. Is that really wrong? Why/why not?

Views: 159

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

P.S.: I forgot to mention that you sometimes sound like a religious zealot. That may be a good thing only when you analyze anything and in an impartial manner, otherwise your posts can't really be enjoyed or appreciated (and that's a shame because you do have very good points sometimes).


The fact that I actually give an argument and what it is my sincere opinion refutes any hint of personal attack. That's the thing that really bothers me. Because I really explained why I said that even in the original post, just so it wouldn't come out as a personal attack. Taking it out of context, it is a personal attack, otherwise you should really consider the whole post/sentence. I know it doesn't really help as you don't really see what I mean and because it's off topic, but these things should be discussed to minimalize the chance of something like this happening again. I have wrote what and why I really meant by that remark, but it seems like it is not enough. I shall do it more boldly from now on.

By being more bold I mean something like 'This is not a personal attack, just an opinion.' (a little larger) at the end of every opinion towards another member of this community.


This is not a hissy-fit. I would and probably am going to do this to avoid any more warnings, because from my experience on other online communities multiple warnings end up in the ban or suspension of that member, and I don't want to do anything to jeopardize in anyway my membership on this online community, the only community I belong to.

I wasn't talking about anything you have said. I was solely referring to Shine's warning and eventual warnings from moderators. That's (what you just did) what being against someone or someone's point from the beginning does. ;)
Yes. This one. I can't really tell by that who can actually help me and how, as I don't want to just bother anyone for any little problem. :) It's not a big deal, just a suggestion. And the fact that Atheist Exile is in the lower corner alone bugs me everytime I visit that page. Perhaps he belongs in another category and that's why he's there. But that's just my problem. :)

I am an organ donator in case of death and have given my body to an anatomic institute of the nearest medical university. As long as there are too less donators and a huge demand (in Germany we have a lack of 12000 kidneys a year), there will be organ trafficking: organized f.ex. by italian mafia N'drangheta or actual prime minister of kosovo Hashim Thaci..see:
What do you think about offering financial compensation for organs? Do you think it will increase the number of kidneys and other organs needed or it will be the same as it is now? Of course, I am talking about an organized solution, and I am not encouraging organ trafficking in any way.

Alright. I am going to explain one more time what I have in mind. I am in support of legalizing financial compensation for people willing to give up their organs after death. I say only for those willing, because if it would be mandatory it would have a lot of opposition and it would be classified as a bad idea from the start by the religious people, that are still a majority pretty much everywhere. This conclusion seems a logical one, as the number of organs available would increase consistently. I am, in no way, in support of legalizing or accepting organ trafficking. 


I am going to make a parallel between legalizing financial compensation for organs after death and legalizing prostitution. This doesn't mean that I think prostitution is more vital than organ donation, I just want you guys to follow the same train of thought you did on that subject. A lot of you agree that legalizing prostitution and concentrating in making it safer for the women that are willing and age appropriate to do it, and concentrate on getting rid of the pimps, the ones actually responsible for all the cases of human trafficking, kidnapping, etc. is a good idea and a lot of people would benefit from it (safer and actual jobs for the women willing to do it, no more human trafficking because we would concentrate on putting the pimps and human traffickers in jail not the women/girls that are either just trying to make a living, etc.). With organ donation it would be the same. You legalize financial compensation for organs after death, you get more organs, legally, and you concentrate on fighting the actual organ traffickers, like you would do with the pimps/human traffickers. A lot of people would benefit and would actually be grateful even if some not directly, but only by being glad that they are still alive.


I do not support the idea that people who actually need those organs should pay for them. I am in support of creating a governmental program that will buy all organs from people willing to give them up, or from people that are unwilling to just donate them without expecting any money in return.


People that are willing only to donate and not expect money in return, can still do just that. You do not take the heroism out of donating organs just by legalizing financial compensation. You can still be a hero, even a greater hero if you choose to just donate your organs even if you have the chance to get money for them. I am not saying that demanding money for your organs is better or even as good as just donating them, but I think it is a decision we should have to make whether we like it or not for the greater good and the whole point of donating organs, which people seem to miss when it comes to this subject: avoiding the death of more people. Again, I am in support of this only if it is organized and if we still fight organ trafficking.


I think this time I did the best I can making it pretty clear what I am thinking, and all in the same post so no confusion is created. I expect some opinions and actual arguments pro and against this. I may have missed some points, that's normal, and I would respond to any questions as best as I can and as far as my knowledge goes.

In Europe we have actually several  legal  situations: there are countries where organs  from  dead persons may be taken  and given to the european organ distribution system  (already existing in La Hague, no money given to families of dead donators) , if the donator at lifetime or his closest family members after his death hasn't  forbidden to do so; and there are countries where organs  from  dead persons may only be taken  and given to the european organ distribution system only if the donator has
allowed it by his allowance (we have donator passports).

(for details see and translate with google:

Shine, I hope you get to read this reply, because I can't directly reply to your post, and that area is too crowded anyway.

I am only replying to your post because I have desperately and unsuccessfully tried to understand the reasoning behind your warning. I don't think you actually analyzed everything in that sentence, except the 'religious zealot'.


The "religious zealot" paragraph concerned the speaker rather than the topic.  How does Jean Marie's posting style relate to the issue of organ donation?   The definition of an  ad hominem remark is to "link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise."  The remark in question need not be grossly confrontational nor insulting in order to be considered ad hominem; the remark must simply address the speaker rather than the subject matter.


And do moderators only warn discussions that they are a part of? I have seen other directly remarks far worse than what you interpret as an attack.


We monitor as many discussions as possible.  Keep in mind that none of us are paid employees of T|A.  You may see us issue warnings in conversations in which we are involved because those happen to be on the finite list of things that we have time to monitor.  


I did not mean to infer that you were attacking Jean Marie.  Here is the original warning:


This exchange is being to veer dangerously close to ad hominem attacks. I know that you said "sound like a religious zealot" rather than "are a religious zealot," but this statement is still directed at the poster rather than the argument.


The confusion likely arises from my using the phrase "ad hominem attacks."  I probably should have phrased it as an "ad hominem remark."  I apologize if this caused any confusion.


Still, I was clear that the problem with the remark was not that it was insulting but that it addressed the speaker rather than the subject matter.


To name one, the term 'racist boy' was used often in a few posts. Nobody seemed to mind that one, except probably the member that was called that. No warnings.


To the best of my knowledge, that issue was dealt with, the speaker did apologize, and the offending remarks were stricken from the discussion.  I did not alter your post nor delete any of your content.  All that I did was call attention to everybody involved that the discussion was getting heated and replies were becoming increasingly directed at the speakers rather than the topic.


Perhaps I made a bad judgment call, but what I saw was a potentially volatile situation.  I thought that delivering a lighthearted reminder--I mean, the threatened "punishment" was Pancakes--would bring the discussion back to its original focus and away from the direction of personal attacks in which it seemed to be headed.


By the way, do you guys keep track of these warnings or it only gets serious if a member keeps doing the same things in a particular discussion?


Yes, I notified the other moderators of my comment made as a moderator.


I hope that this clears up any confusion.

I didn't know, until now, that the 'racist boy' thing was dealt with in another discussion. Like I've said, I chose to stop reading that discussion after a few posts.


Again, my post that contained the 'religious zealot' remark was meant as a friendly suggestion, but I do see the reasons for your concern. I probably took it too personal. Sorry. :) I just hate being misunderstood, especially when I do my best to explain why I say something, and I wanted to clarify it, again.


And, yes, if you would have used 'ad hominem remark' and not 'ad hominem attack' it would have been more accurate. And I don't see an ad hominem remark as a bad thing, especially if it is meant to improve the quality of the discussion overall.


Anyway, I hope that this is my last post about this and I hope that my last meaningful post on this thread would not be overlookd, and that we can continue the original discussion.


Oh, I do have another question... after how many warnings should a member start to worry and what can be the consequences? It isn't really specified in the Debate Guidelines and I would really like to know.

E. Nigma,


I am glad that this issue is cleared up.  Regarding your last question:


Oh, I do have another question... after how many warnings should a member start to worry and what can be the consequences? It isn't really specified in the Debate Guidelines and I would really like to know.


Violating the first section of the debate guidelines (threats of physical violence and/or revealing personal information) will result in immediate banning.


Regarding the lesser infractions (circular reasoning, ad hominems, not reading replies, etc.) there is no set number of warnings before any major action like suspension or banning.  We don't have a one-size-fits-all moderation policy because situations can have so many different variables.  This does not mean that moderation is arbitrary, but rather that it is a rational consensus reached by the team of moderators.  In short, suspension is something that is determined based upon the severity and frequency of infractions.  


Basically, for the lesser infractions it will be very clear if you are ever in danger of serious repercussions.  As you have probably noticed, moderation is performed in the same sphere as the incident so that there is no question about to whom, for what, or when a warning was issued.  For the lesser infractions, moderator warnings can function like reminders to keep the debate on topic.


I hope that answered your question. :)

State of Mississippi is dealing with organs ?
Ex-prisoner has to donate kidney to sister

Yesterday, 16:20 clock

    * Article to a Friend
    * Print

Pearl (DAPD). After 16 years in the state of Mississippi two sisters have been released from prison  - on the condition that one of them  donates a kidney to theothe,r Jamie and Gladys Scott sailed on Friday from the prison grounds and waved to the waiting reporters. The two had been sentenced for a robbery committed together to life in prison. Governor Haley Barbour pardoned them, however the 38-year-old Gladys donate now within one year of her sick sister a kidney.

Ex-prisoner has sister donate kidney to enlarge

The 36-year-old Jamie Scott is on dialysis dependent, which costs the public according to the authorities a year $ 200,000. Gladys Scott had offered in its petition, donate to her sister in exchange for early release of a kidney. Nevertheless, the combination of organ donation with the pardon is controversial. Critics said that if it were a form of body action, which was banned. It is also not clear what happened to Gladys, when her sister would not tolerate their tissues.

That a governor makes prisoners at the mercy conditions in the U.S. is common practice. There were also unusual requirements, such as to leave the state and never return it already. But Barbour's requirements are unique to date.

The sisters want to live with her mother and her grown children in Florida.

© 2011 AP. All rights reserv


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service