I may be going out on a limb here, but I don't think you have a right to sell your body parts...not legally at any rate.
I must have missed the part where the contestants were forced into this. If the choice is despicable, they have only themselves to blame.
You can make a specific donation while living. But when dead, if you are an organ donor, the organs are used towards those who come up from pre-established waiting lists. So you can't promise or sell an organ that will be obtained after your death.
Wouldn't be the first time individual rights and the law have been at odds. A government's submission to nanny state collectivism does not nullify or alter my rights. The fact that some women blunder into something that more or less becomes slavery doesn't make it any less my right to sell sex for money. Someone's inability to smoke a joint without finding a way to fuck up and hurt somebody doesn't mean it should be assumed I will do the same, as an excuse to deny me the chance. In short, my rights should not be abridged or constrained to protect someone else from bad choices and a predatory world.
and i suppose whenever a commercial channel shows schindlers list you write in demanding they remove the adverts lest they profit from human misery?
really, the truth of this programme is that its the end result of all those candid camera's and beadles about. the problem isn't the human misery angle - we've all watched something thats invoked human misery as part of a plot - but just how raw it is.
I don't know. Isn't it harm when you exploit people who are incredibly desperate and will probably do anything to have a chance to live? What sort of people try to profit off from something like that? There is no doubt that people are doing this of their own choice and it is certainly ethically dispicable. From a freedom point of view, maybe they should be allowed to do what they want with their own bodies. But...is it truly an equal contract? On some level, since organs are something these people need to live, isn't this some sort of coersion? They will die without what this show is offering. How "free" is the free will in this kind of situation? No one would claim signing a contract with a gun to your head is okay. With these people's lives in the balance, it is virtually the same thing. I'm not sure all the angles are as simplistic as everyone agreed to be a part of it so it's kosher.
"Harm" isn't enough. If they have a choice, they cannot be victims of anything but circumstance, and I'll not hand over my rights to save someone from bad luck. Irrelevant. "Maybe"?!? I need food to live. Is the grocery store coercing me into giving them money?
HUH?????? Plain and simple, they can't 'win' the kidney. Once the woman dies, it becomes property of whatever organization runs the organ donor program. The people in need can't bypass the organ donor program unless they go blackmarket. They are taking advantage of the people in the contest. The person giving up the kidney has been told all of this but you know the old saying....the show must go on.
Nah, but it would be of dubious morality if he tempted three bums to fight no holds barred until two were knocked out by offering a pecan pie to the winner.
My right to decide what happens with any part of my body cannot be disputed, and does not require the approval of any governing body to legitimize. I can only be limited in my ability to directly cause harm or infringement of rights for others. In context, as I said before, that means it's not my problem if someone else sees their desperate situation exploited by another party for profit. I didn't put them in that position, and their situation has no bearing on mine.
Um, so, that's not okay? What about paying crack whores to fight to the death? Is that on the approved activities list?
Go ahead...put a classified ad in the paper selling your kidney and we'll see how long that pompous statement holds up.
Public humiliation to win an organ? That's some cold-hearted shit right there. I wouldn't have the government shut them down, but I'd sure as hell call and complain to the advertisers. I mean, it'd be one thing if the contest was "whoever can raise the most money for renal repair research wins a kidney," but this... just... damn... Wouldn't be an issue if people could sell organs, or at least the ones they've got duplicates of.
Do you no longer have the right to speak after someone punches you in the mouth? Yes, governments tend towards submission to collectivism and people are sometimes not terribly reluctant to vote away their own rights on the promise of more safety and security. I'll not recognize something built on mob rule as it's only supporting premise.
Did I forget to mention that the bums each have a heretofore undiagnosed pecan allergy? Lindsay v. Paris on a special live action Celebrity Deathmatch? What's gonna be wrong with that? [action=Scene cut] to a display of spontaneous human combustion.[/action]
You people really should read the whole story and not just the snippet that The Lurker posted. The contestants have not even been tested for compatibility. Also the woman donating the kidney has cancer.
So the vote means nothing to you? The minority should drive society as long as it's the minority view (Libertarianism) you are a part of? Would you like to force that paradigm on everyone for their own good, too?
Not when it comes to my rights. There are other areas where it has a legitimate role. Rights are not something that can be voted away. That is the beginning and end of my point. Yes, I would "force" someone to limit their actions with respect to my rights. No, there is no requirement that intact rights actually benefit anyone.
Meh! I don't need any extra kidneys. They'd just keep me awake all night having to piss. Or is that my prostate?
You ask a question, whine that no-one answers, then neg-rep when someone does? What kind of idiot are you?
These people aren't in danger of imminent death if they don't get a kidney, hell, I went for two and half years on dialysis with no kidneys. And if the donor has cancer, she's not exactly at the top of the list for a donor either.
Tyranny of the majority. Albert and I may disagree on what constitutes a fundamental right, but I emphatically agree with him that rights should not be subject to majority approval.
