 Alarcon wrote: |
| If you're against it tell me why. |
|
I cannot say that I am against it... for others, but I will never give permission to touch my body in any way once I am determined dead. This includes not giving any of my body parts.
I understand that the universal "you" is free. I am free, and so are you. One of the questions is where does my freedom end, and where does yours start? A tough (tuff!) question.
Where organ donation is concerned, I am free to insist the limits of how my body, and its parts can be dealt with once I die.
I do not presume to be morally correct in this decision that I have taken, but it is the assertion of my will.
Nature was created within the limits of certain physical laws. I understand that we have learnt alot about those laws, and have used some for the betterment of (some of ) humanity's lot. Please note that if you are reading this, you stand among the rich. That you be at a computer at home or in a public place, you are still contributing to this world's higher end user/consummer of its natural resources. So, how much of it are we all justfied in partaking of? Anything we want? As much as we want? Where are the limits? Is it because we are capable of doing/using something that we should? At what point should we consider Nature's laws and respect them?
In this country, medical care is now either free to the individual citizen or at an unimaginably-extremely low cost (this depends on which province you live in) but the greater part of it is free. 250$ - 350$ annually ( money exchange converter http://www.xe.com/ucc/) in some provinces I know about. There are some provinces who also taxe cityzens for medicine insurance, but this is also VERY cheap. Please note: one day at a hospital can EASILY cost over $1000/day, and actually usually does. A friend (in 1987) said that the provincial government had sent the father a hospital bill for his recent visit of ten (10) days due to a heart attack, it was for a total of $25 000 for that stay and the health services he received during his stay. This was not a bill, but the government's way of letting cityzens know how much it cost... for the medical services you received... then. It was a random practice to send this type of information.
This to me all boils down to money. How are public finances redistributed within a society, and how is it determined? Back to our potential to extend life, there is a natural law. We are playing with it. How can one justify receiving something at something else's or someone else's benefit? As an example: in Ontario, a rich Canadian province, they decided this year that they would limit services offered to autistic children after the age of six, even if research showed its benefits and had proven the success of the services in question. These services are offered for free in Alberta (another canadian province) where this couple, because of this decision, decided to move to for their child. They did not want to move.
It will/is only for the rich, and inadvertently at the cost of the poor. Wether you consider facility space use, professionals being required, becoming unavailable for other needs, money for training, money for equipment, transportation, man hours to find, select appropriate organs, etc., etc., etc.
Now don't be mislead, it is not purely a question of money, but of everyone's individual needs. Duration of life of the rich versus the cost to quality of life for the poor.
I would invest that money to insure a better quality of life for all, as opposed to an extend life for some.