However small the chance may be, there is still a non-zero chance that I could be adversely affected by donating a kidney with those adverse effects including death. In which case I ask: Why is the life of someone with a kidney disease more important than my life? Why am I expected to risk lifelong health complications or death to save their life?
[RD] Why do you still have two kidneys?
- Thread starter Mouthwash
- Start date
However small the chance may be, there is still a non-zero chance that I could be adversely affected by donating a kidney with those adverse effects including death. In which case I ask: Why is the life of someone with a kidney disease more important than my life? Why am I expected to risk lifelong health complications or death to save their life?
Why throw out a rope to a drowning man? Why save a child crossing the street? All of these carry non-zero chances of you being 'adversely affected', as you put it.
In practical terms, kidney donation is one of the more personally expensive mechanisms of directly saving a life. On the upside, it's got a very high level of personal visibility. Like, I donate to malaria nets, and I will never see whether or not I actually prevented malaria from affecting the child. With kidney donation, I've got a scar and probably even a Facebook friend.
It makes the most sense for someone with a loved one who needs a kidney. We value our loved ones more than strangers. But the rest of us could definitely be working an extra shift every year to donate to a kidney research organization
It makes the most sense for someone with a loved one who needs a kidney. We value our loved ones more than strangers. But the rest of us could definitely be working an extra shift every year to donate to a kidney research organization
The difference between all those examples you listed and kidney donation is that society isn't going to shame me if I choose not to do those things. People would see it as understandable and reasonable to not put yourself in harm's way to save another, yet when it comes to organ donation, all of a sudden society expects me to put the well being of another ahead of my own personal safety. How does that make any kind of sense to you?
At any rate, I'm guessing this thread came about because either you or someone close to you is in a situation where they need a kidney and can't get one. If that's the case, then I do feel sorry for your situation, but that does not obligate me or anyone else to help. Nor does it give you the right to attempt to shame people who make the choice not to help.
Instead of pushing for some sort of compulsory organ harvesting program (which seems to be where this conversation will eventually go) society should instead push for the development of processes and technology that would make lab-grown organs both reliable and affordable.
EDIT: Not to mention, I have a wife and kids who rely on me and would be devastated if anything happened to me. So please explain to me why I should put the life of a stranger above the well-being and happiness of the three people I love most in this world?
Last edited:
Actually, society would expect you to stick your neck out to save someone if the risk was minimal. There's much less social pressure around organ donation, not more.
Incorrect.
A better guess than the previous one.
Why should you put a near-certainty of saving someone's life over the tiniest chance that something would happen to you? Why, indeed?
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,654
Harsh as it is, I don't think anyone's obligated to give two hoots about the lives/happiness/etc of complete strangers.
Sofista
Deity
Similarly to Hygro, I've agreed to become an organ donor when I renewed my ID card earlier this year. But to give away an organ like that? The simple constatation that we have two instead of one makes me suspect evolution saw it as the smart move.
I guess it's a matter of risk assessment. Charities outside the supermarket ask me for some stuff for the poor? Sure, I'll get them baby food and canned beans. My own kidney? No way.
I guess it's a matter of risk assessment. Charities outside the supermarket ask me for some stuff for the poor? Sure, I'll get them baby food and canned beans. My own kidney? No way.
Funny how folks take the complete opposite tack when it comes to healthcare. See, this is a real test of altruism where costless political gesturing and whataboutism don't work - we can expect that people are going to show their true colors.
Last edited:
No, none of this has anything to do with "showing your true colours", on the contrary. Donating an organ isn't something you just do willy-nilly. There are significant consequences to such a move. It is a health-risk to the person doing it, both in terms of the surgery as well as the future well-being, it impacts how you can live your life, your body is significantly weakened, the list goes on and on. Not sure how it gets counted in other countries, but in Germany donating a kidney qualifies you for certain levels of disability and lowers your ability to work. It doesn't seem like you truly understand what donating a kidney does to the body of the person who is donating, else you wouldn't make such suspect comments.
There is absolutely nothing that makes asking for proper healthcare for everyone connected to the readyness of donating an organ. It's just disingenuous to claim otherwise. Just because a person can survive with just one kidney doesn't mean that you should try it unless you absolutely have to. It's a colossal strain on your body.
Azem.Ocram
King
I disagree. His comment is merely Machiavellian which is a different part of the Dark Triad. I myself am Machiavellian in my opinions and Utilitarian in my ideals. I absolutely do not give 2 hoots about strangers. We live in a society that forbids harming others but encourages selfishness which indirectly leads to harm of others. Or maybe that’s just the USA. I hear Canada and the EU are more egalitarian.
Kidneys are poorly designed because evolution is slow and imperfect. I could go into detail but miniature dialysis machines would be objectively better than even cloned kidneys and there exists an archimedes screw type heart replacement that unexpectedly lets a man live when his real/natural/biological heart has stopped beating years ago. Likewise bicycles are more efficient than walking because the wheel is far better designed than anything evolution is capable of.
Source 1: I have 2-year degrees in Biology and Chemistry, a Minor in Mathematics and was pursuing a 4-year degree in Engineering until I ran out of money and got a full time job.
Source 2: https://www.kidney.org/transplantation/livingdonors/what-expect-after-donation
Source 3:
https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-02/no-pulse-how-doctors-reinvented-human-heart/
Notes:
Human kidneys adjust the water concentration of what becomes urine multiple times in both directions and don’t filter waste very well. Certain wild animals and even domesticated cats have more efficient kidneys thanks to stronger selective pressure though dialysis machines are more efficient. Engineers are working to miniaturize them. Miniaturization is a common innovation.
Wheels pretty much require 2 completely separate parts in order to allow full rotation. This is very difficult to achieve with assembled biological constructs and virtually impossible for a single grown organism to possess.
Last edited:
Ok, so say I do fall into that small percent that has complications after donating. Say I even end up dying from it. Do you think my wife and kids are going to care that I saved a stranger's life at the cost of my own? No. They would much rather have me alive and healthy than some random person who lost the genetic lottery.
And that's the point you are failing to grasp. I don't care if some stranger dies because they can't get a kidney. Now if said stranger is willing to compensate me an amount that will allow me and my family to live comfortably for the rest of our lives, then I'd be happy to give my kidney.
And that's not me being greedy. The reason I'd want that much money is as an insurance policy in case I do fall into that small percentage that has serious complications after donating. And no, I won't refund the money if I come out of the donation just fine. That is me being greedy.
In short, you want my kidney, you gotta make me rich in return.
I'm not sure whether this crosses over the line from sociopathic to downright evil but you should at least consider some heavy introspection (I imagine you consider yourself a good person).
So putting my family ahead of faceless strangers is evil in your view? Sounds like it's not me that needs introspection.
If one of my family members needed my kidney, I'd give it up no questions asked. But for a stranger? Nope, not my problem. They can go ask one of their family members for a kidney.
What you need to understand is that people only have a responsibility to take care of themselves and their families. People do not have a responsibility to take care of society as a whole. So as long as my wife and kids are taken care of, then I've done my duty as a human being. Anything else I do beyond that is just me being generous.
Last edited:
Akka
Moody old mage.
Wat ?
I mean, I agree that it's normal to give priority to the self, then to the loved one, then to others, so yeah I'll keep my kidneys tyvm.
But how exactly isn't it everyone's responsibility to take care of society ? Whose responsibility is it, then ?
We're all part of society, and as such we're all responsible for it. That's the entire concept of society.
Sofista
Deity
We all try to be good citizens and productive members of society. But there's a point where it becomes virtue signalling.
Why not, then, give half of our savings to charity? Money is renewable! What's not renewable is half of your kidneys, and one may never know if they're both going to be fine down the years, or a loved one might need one that you gave away to feel a humanitarian.
Why not, then, give half of our savings to charity? Money is renewable! What's not renewable is half of your kidneys, and one may never know if they're both going to be fine down the years, or a loved one might need one that you gave away to feel a humanitarian.
yung.carl.jung
Hey Bird! I'm Morose & Lugubrious
I'm an organ donor, good enough for me to be honest. unless I'm on the brink of death I don't really visit any medical establishments besides the pharmacy. haven't been to the doctor (or the hospital) in what feels like a decade. maybe I'll get a check up once im 30 because smoking and fried foods do some stuff to your body..
BenitoChavez
What business is it of yours?
They can have my kidneys when they pry them from my cold dead body. Seriously. Being a deceased donor carries no personal risk and saves lives. It's win-win.
It's just feedback. So when trying to figure out how to build a political system, remember there are people like commodore that are completely unwilling to help other people. But, ostensibly, are to willing to work hard to benefit their family.
If you want to use part of their labour to create a superior aggregate, you either need to make him think you're part of his family, charge a fair amount for his use of public services, or trick him into assigning some of his output to your ownership.
Social institutions and theology won't work. It's just the way he thinks.
Taking a tiny risk to do tremendous good is not putting strangers ahead of your family.
Similar threads
