Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sriram on August 11, 2017, 06:00:23 AM
-
HI everyone,
Here is an article about GM pigs likely to be bred for organ transplant into humans.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-40886600
**********
The most genetically modified animals in existence have been created to help end a shortage of organs for transplant, say US researchers.
The scientists successfully rid 37 pigs of viruses hiding in their DNA, overcoming one of the big barriers to transplanting pig organs to people.
The team at eGenesis admits preventing pig organs from being rejected by the human body remains a huge challenge
But experts said it was a promising and exciting first step.
"We know we have an audacious vision of a world with no shortage of organs, that is very challenging, but that is also our motivation to remove mountains."
Pigs are particularly promising for xenotransplantation as their organs are a similar size to humans', and the animals can be bred in large numbers.
But removing the viruses is only half the challenge, even organs donated from other people can cause a strong immune reaction that leads to the transplant being rejected.
The US team is investigating further genetic modifications to make pig organs more acceptable to the human immune system.
***********
We are becoming pigs quite literally, it seems! Just when people world over are considering vegetarianism as a viable option because of animal rights considerations.....!
Why do we fear death so much that we think it is necessary to go to such lengths to extend our lives? And how long can we extend our lives and with what quality?
Any views?
Sriram
-
Ditch all medicine and let nature take its course.
What do you think?
-
HI everyone,
Here is an article about GM pigs likely to be bred for organ transplant into humans.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-40886600
**********
The most genetically modified animals in existence have been created to help end a shortage of organs for transplant, say US researchers.
The scientists successfully rid 37 pigs of viruses hiding in their DNA, overcoming one of the big barriers to transplanting pig organs to people.
The team at eGenesis admits preventing pig organs from being rejected by the human body remains a huge challenge
But experts said it was a promising and exciting first step.
"We know we have an audacious vision of a world with no shortage of organs, that is very challenging, but that is also our motivation to remove mountains."
Pigs are particularly promising for xenotransplantation as their organs are a similar size to humans', and the animals can be bred in large numbers.
But removing the viruses is only half the challenge, even organs donated from other people can cause a strong immune reaction that leads to the transplant being rejected.
The US team is investigating further genetic modifications to make pig organs more acceptable to the human immune system.
***********
We are becoming pigs quite literally, it seems! Just when people world over are considering vegetarianism as a viable option because of animal rights considerations.....!
Why do we fear death so much that we think it is necessary to go to such lengths to extend our lives? And how long can we extend our lives and with what quality?
Any views?
Sriram
So are you saying if you needed a donor organ to save your life you wouldn't accept one?
-
Another way to use and abuse animals and see them as commodities to be exploited. Just what we need.
The answer to the shortage of organs is so ridiculously simple that it beggars belief that more countries aren't adopting it - presumed consent or opt out. Wales has done it, so has Scotland and it's being floated in England. Sorted.
-
Another way to use and abuse animals and see them as commodities to be exploited. Just what we need.
The answer to the shortage of organs is so ridiculously simple that it beggars belief that more countries aren't adopting it - presumed consent or opt out. Wales has done it, so has Scotland and it's being floated in England. Sorted.
I cannot see the difference between eating animals like pigs, and using their organs to save human lives.
-
I cannot see the difference between eating animals like pigs, and using their organs to save human lives.
There is no difference. Both see pigs as things, objects which exist only to serve human desires, crops to be harvested and not the intelligent and affectionate sentient social creatures they actually are. I have no part in the former and would have no part in the latter.
-
There is no difference. Both see pigs as things which exist only to serve human desires. I have no part in the former and would have no part in the latter.
I take it you are a vegetarian? I have no problem with eating animals or using their products, as long as they are killed in as humane a manner as is possible.
-
I take it you are a vegetarian?
Closer to vegan, in fact.
I have no problem with eating animals or using their products
I do.
as long as they are killed in as humane a manner as is possible.
They're not.
-
There is no difference. Both see pigs as things which exist only to serve human desires. I have no part in the former and would have no part in the latter.
Just as a thought experiment.
What do you think you might do if you woke up in hospital after having had a serious heart attack and found that you had been given a pig heart transplant?
-
I take it you are a vegetarian? I have no problem with eating animals or using their products, as long as they are killed in as humane a manner as is possible.
ah the old oxymoron of humane killing.
-
ah the old oxymoron of humane killing.
It's not entirely an oxymoron in principle - it's perfectly possible to kill a human or non-human animal quickly and painlessly. It's just not done, for a variety of reasons.
-
ah the old oxymoron of humane killing.
I said as humanely as possible, I don't suppose it will ever be painless.
-
I said as humanely as possible, I don't suppose it will ever be painless.
... least of all when animals are routinely abused by slaughterhouse workers: http://tinyurl.com/ybt5xm2q
-
I said as humanely as possible, I don't suppose it will ever be painless.
Doesn't really matter. Killing to eat something"s flesh isn't humane.
-
It's not entirely an oxymoron in principle - it's perfectly possible to kill a human or non-human animal quickly and painlessly. It's just not done, for a variety of reasons.
in terms of killing something in order to eat it, it is an oxymoron
-
... least of all when animals are routinely abused by slaughterhouse workers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40895049
Apparently CCTV cameras are going to be put in all UK slaughter houses to monitor how they are killed.
-
I have no problem with killing animals for food or to save people's lives.
My morality puts my species first.
-
I have no problem with killing animals for food or to save people's lives.
My morality puts my species first.
Which many - me included - see as no morality at all. Both are entirely unnecessary, so the suffering involved is purely gratuitous - not my idea of morality.
-
Just as a thought experiment.
What do you think you might do if you woke up in hospital after having had a serious heart attack and found that you had been given a pig heart transplant?
That wouldn't happen - consent would have be sought beforehand.
-
That wouldn't happen - consent would have be sought beforehand.
It's a thought experiment. Let's say they thought they had consent mistakenly.
-
It's a thought experiment. Let's say they thought they had consent mistakenly.
After a heart attack you don't just wake up in hospital with a freshly transplanted organ inside you.
For a thought experiment it shows a singular lack of anything resembling thought.
-
After a heart attack you don't just wake up in hospital with a freshly transplanted organ inside you.
For a thought experiment it shows a singular lack of anything resembling thought.
BTW do you refuse to take all meds which have been tested on animals?
-
Should the medical complications around rejection ever be resolved, to the extent that using organs from pigs for transplant purposes becomes a routine and successful option, it would seem inconsistent that those who currently accept that pigs are killed so that they can ingest bits of them as food would then baulk at using bits of pigs in other ways.
Once you commit to seeing pigs/animals as food then surely the underlying principle here is that you view them as being a resource.
-
Should the medical complications around rejection ever be resolved, to the extent that using organs from pigs for transplant purposes becomes a routine and successful option, it would seem inconsistent that those who currently accept that pigs are killed so that they can ingest bits of them as food would then baulk at using bits of pigs in other ways.
Once you commit to seeing pigs/animals as food then surely the underlying principle here is that you view them as being a resource.
Exactly.
-
Which many - me included - see as no morality at all. Both are entirely unnecessary, so the suffering involved is purely gratuitous - not my idea of morality.
But you are just asserting your morality.
Why is mine wrong.
I care for people, and for animals, but I eat them as well, and have no problem with that.
-
BTW do you refuse to take all meds which have been tested on animals?
Pretty much, yes. I don't really 'do' medication (and have precious little time for the medical profession at that). It's just about impossible to take anything that hasn't been tested on animals - if humans ingest it, it's been tested on animals somewhere along the line however pointlessly. But as I say, I don't do medication. I'm in good health, I don't need to.
-
But you are just asserting your morality.
Why is mine wrong.
I care for people, and for animals, but I eat them as well, and have no problem with that.
So if I think it's OK to kill you and eat you, any objection from you would be just you asserting your morality, and I should just ask you 'Why is mine wrong?'
-
Should the medical complications around rejection ever be resolved, to the extent that using organs from pigs for transplant purposes becomes a routine and successful option, it would seem inconsistent that those who currently accept that pigs are killed so that they can ingest bits of them as food would then baulk at using bits of pigs in other ways.
Once you commit to seeing pigs/animals as food then surely the underlying principle here is that you view them as being a resource.
I do see them as a resource, but I do not include all animals in that. Animals that I consider as being more aware like elephants, apes, I would not want to use.
Things like chickens, fish, insects have no concept of being a resource, or much of a concept of anything, so I feel fine using them as I would eating vegetables.
-
Pretty much, yes. I don't really 'do' medication (and have precious little time for the medical profession at that). It's just about impossible to take anything that hasn't been tested on animals - if humans ingest it, it's been tested on animals somewhere along the line however pointlessly. But as I say, I don't do medication. I'm in good health, I don't need to.
But if you needed medication to save your life, which had been tested on animals would you take it?
-
So if I think it's OK to kill you and eat you, any objection from you would be just you asserting your morality, and I should just ask you 'Why is mine wrong?'
Some people may think like that, and we lock them up.
Our species is 'special' to us.
I am speciesist, and I have no problem with that.
Would you eat insects?
-
But you are just asserting your morality.
Why is mine wrong.
Because yours invites/entails gratuitous suffering, suffering that has no need to exist.
Nobody needs to eat animals to live happily and healthily, and the solution to organ shortages is already in our hands - we don't have to wonder about it, we have the answer already (that doesn't involve exploiting pigs as a resource). Therefore continuing to eat animals, and to pursue xenotransplantation when the alternatives to both exist already, is to perpetuate suffering.
I care for people, and for animals, but I eat them as well, and have no problem with that.
That's a novel definition of caring.
-
But if you needed medication to save your life, which had been tested on animals would you take it?
No.
-
No.
Fair enough.
-
I do see them as a resource, but I do not include all animals in that. Animals that I consider as being more aware like elephants, apes, I would not want to use.
Things like chickens, fish, insects have no concept of being a resource, or much of a concept of anything, so I feel fine using them as I would eating vegetables.
But what about pigs?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/science/10angier.html
-
Because yours invites/entails gratuitous suffering, suffering that has no need to exist.
Nobody needs to eat animals to live happily and healthily, and the solution to organ shortages is already in our hands - we don't have to wonder about it, we have the answer already (that doesn't involve exploiting pigs as a resource). Therefore continuing to eat animals, and to pursue xenotransplantation when the alternatives to both exist already, is to perpetuate suffering.
That's a novel definition of caring.
WRONG, I do not advocate suffering to the animals.
Animals that we eat have no concept of death and have no plans for the future.
You are anthropomorphising feelings thoughts and feelings they do not have to come to this frankly bizarre notion that they are equal to us.
They are not, they are food.
-
I do see them as a resource, but I do not include all animals in that. Animals that I consider as being more aware like elephants, apes, I would not want to use.
Things like chickens, fish, insects have no concept of being a resource, or much of a concept of anything, so I feel fine using them as I would eating vegetables.
This obscures the difference between a moral agent and a moral patient. Chickens, fish and insects are not moral agents (neither are elephants for that matter - apes are a doubtful case in need if further evidence) but they are moral patients - as are, say, severely brain damaged babies.
http://tinyurl.com/yapgvmz5
-
But what about pigs?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/science/10angier.html
Perhaps pigs should be included as being more aware and not eaten.
Perhaps.
-
Some people may think like that, and we lock them up.
Our species is 'special' to us.
I am speciesist, and I have no problem with that.
Would you eat insects?
And I'm a cannibal and I have no problem with that.
I am special to me. By the way using the ad populum here as you do twice doesn't help.
You and insects are much the same to me, so happy to eat either you or insects but I prefer the taste of long pig.
-
WRONG, I do not advocate suffering to the animals.
Yes, you do. In practical terms, you do, by being complicit in the system that breeds and kills them as food items.
Animals that we eat have no concept of death and have no plans for the future.
You are anthropomorphising feelings thoughts and feelings they do not have to come to this frankly bizarre notion that they are equal to us.
Is this what you know, or what you tell yourself because it suits you?
They are not, they are food.
Not to me they're not. They have no need to be.
-
Shaker, I take it you don't approve of killing vermin or swatting flies?
-
This obscures the difference between a moral agent and a moral patient. Chickens, fish and insects are not moral agents (neither are elephants for that matter - apes are a doubtful case in need if further evidence) but they are moral patients - as are, say, severely brain damaged babies.
Damaged babies are my species and I grant them all the rights I would to any human.
Animals are not, they are food and a resource to my species (some I would exclude).
Would you eat insects?
Would you eat plants.
You HAVE to eat something that was once alive to live.
What if i say the vegetables do not want to be eaten?
-
Shaker, I take it you don't approve of killing vermin or swatting flies?
Absolutely correct.
-
Yes, you do.
Is this what you know, or what you tell yourself because it suits you?
Not to me they're not. They have no need to be.
And it's fine that to you that they are not. I am not suggesting that you should.
I am saying that you are not demonstrating the case they I am wrong.
Just that we disagree.
-
Absolutely correct.
I do clay pigeon shooting, and have been invited to shoot live birds.
I refused and would never want to shoot living things for fun ( I let most of the clays go free as well, but that's another thing)
-
Damaged babies are my species and I grant them all the rights I would to any human.
Animals are not, they are food and a resource to my species (some I would exclude).
Speciesism, in other words, which is in itself wholly arbitrary, and arbitrary even within that arbitrariness since you eat some non-humans but exclude some other kinds.
Would you eat insects?
No.
Would you eat plants.
I already do.
You HAVE to eat something that was once alive to live.
What if i say the vegetables do not want to be eaten?
I would say: you are required to demonstrate that vegetables possess the property of sentience, and I would wave you off wishing you the very best of luck in your endeavours.
-
And it's fine that to you that they are not. I am not suggesting that you should.
I am saying that you are not demonstrating the case they I am wrong.
Just that we disagree.
You can't demonstrate that suffering is wrong to someone who doesn't care that suffering is wrong.
-
After a heart attack you don't just wake up in hospital with a freshly transplanted organ inside you.
For a thought experiment it shows a singular lack of anything resembling thought.
That's why it is called an experiment. It might not work first, second or 1000th time.
So lets pretend that we have visited every room in hotel pedant and finally experimented our way to a scenario where you wake up in hospital with a purely unintended, unsolicited and unfortunate bit of a pig transplanted into your body........
-
You can't demonstrate that suffering is wrong to someone who doesn't care that suffering is wrong.
What suffering?
I do not want the animals to suffer.
-
What suffering?
The suffering of sentient creatures (ostensibly somewhat tautologous, since sentience entails the capacity to suffer) in their billions the world over.
I do not want the animals to suffer.
As you've said, but by your actions you are complicit in it.
-
The suffering of sentient creatures (ostensibly somewhat tautologous, since sentience entails the capacity to suffer) in their billions the world over.
As you've said, but by your actions you are complicit in it.
You are giving animals the capacity to have feelings and concerns they do not have.
The cow does not worry that it is on a farm and might one day be killed for food.
It does not think at all, apart from eating grass.
They are animals, that are not humans. They are food.
Given that, and the fact they CAN feel pain, I would like them to be converted to food, painlessly.
-
You are giving animals the capacity to have feelings and concerns they do not have.
What is your basis for this assertion?
The cow does not worry that it is on a farm and might one day be killed for food.
It does not think at all, apart from eating grass.
As before: do you know this, or prefer to think it?
They are animals, that are not humans.
I know what speciesism is: repetition doesn't defend it or justify it, it's just repetition.
They are food.
Not to me. They have no need to be.
Given that, and the fact they CAN feel pain, I would like them to be converted to food, painlessly.
Which isn't going to happen, is it?
-
What is your basis for this assertion?
[quotw]The cow does not worry that it is on a farm and might one day be killed for food.
It does not think at all, apart from eating grass.
As before: do you know this, or prefer to think it?
[uote]They are animals, that are not humans.
I know what speciesism is: repetition doesn't defend it or justify it, it's just repetition.
Not to me. They have no need to be.Which isn't going to happen, is it?
You are asserting they have fears so you have the burden of proof.
The default position is that they do not until shown to do so.
I understand that you draw the line about what is food in a different place to me. We disagree, but I am not wrong and neither are you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mClv6S3BK60
-
You are giving animals the capacity to have feelings and concerns they do not have.
The cow does not worry that it is on a farm and might one day be killed for food.
It does not think at all, apart from eating grass.
They are animals, that are not humans. They are food.
Given that, and the fact they CAN feel pain, I would like them to be converted to food, painlessly.
I think you are morphing into Alan Burns
-
I think you are morphing into Alan Burns
I take that as a serious insult!
In what way is my position not reasonable.
You cannot say animals have the reasoning capacity that we do, unless you can demonstrate this.
Can you?
-
BeRat,
Dogs and pigs have similar emotional intelligence and we know that the emotional intelligence in dogs is similar to that of a child aged around two-two and a half.
-
You are asserting they have fears so you have the burden of proof.
The default position is that they do not until shown to do so.
As far as I'm aware (and concerned) it has been shown.
By this I don't mean that the animals killed for food have long-range fears of the far future in the way that humans are aware of death (their own; that of others) at some unspecified point not-now-but-yet-to-come. That might be the case, but there's no evidence of it.
On the other hand it's surely obvious that animals have proximate, right-now fears. To deny this is to deny the evidence of your senses - including the behaviour of animals in slaughterhouses, or a group of cows spooked by a barking dog and so forth.
-
BeRat,
Dogs and pigs have similar emotional intelligence and we know that the emotional intelligence in dogs is similar to that of a child aged around two-two and a half.
Do they make plans and fear death?
What is emotional intelligence?
Of course dogs and cats work well with us, as they have evolved to be what we want, so they can react to our feelings.
Human beings are omnivores, and we have evolved that way, our genes make us ideally adapted to eat meat as part of our diet.
I am speciesist, and I arbitrarily draw that line, which I understand you may not.
But, so what?
-
Some friends of mine raised a calf whose mother has died. Their daughter in law slept in his stable at night because he cried for her for weeks. This wasn't a hunger thing - all his physical needs were met. He used to lie with his head in her lap crying.
-
Do they make plans and fear death?
What is emotional intelligence?
Of course dogs and cats work well with us, as they have evolved to be what we want, so they can react to our feelings.
Human beings are omnivores, and we have evolved that way, our genes make us ideally adapted to eat meat as part of our diet.
I am speciesist, and I arbitrarily draw that line, which I understand you may not.
But, so what?
Dogs and pigs feel emotions such as pleasure, fear and love in the same way that a young child does. They don't feel guilt.
-
As far as I'm aware (and concerned) it has been shown.
By this I don't mean that the animals killed for food have long-range fears of the far future in the way that humans are aware of death (their own; that of others) at some unspecified point not-now-but-yet-to-come. That might be the case, but there's no evidence of it.
On the other hand it's surely obvious that animals have proximate, right-now fears. To deny this is to deny the evidence of your senses - including the behaviour of animals in slaughterhouses, or a group of cows spooked by a barking dog and so forth.
I grant that they have immediate fears, as of course they would, as it helps survival.
That's why I would like them despatched in a way that caused no fear and no pain so that they are converted to food in a humane way.
That, this is not what happens all the time everywhere, is not something I am happy with, and would like to see changed.
But, that is true for lots of things, that I also still take part in or use.
I travel by car, and I know people die in cars.
-
You cannot say animals have the reasoning capacity that we do, unless you can demonstrate this.
Can you?
It's not about reasoning.
Reasoning isn't the morally relevant category because if it were, in the name of consistency we would eat humans with diminished (or nonexistent) reasoning capacities: babies, the severely brain damaged, demented elderly people and so forth.
The morally relevant quality is the ability to suffer, a stance that goes by the clumsy name of sentiocentrism - sentience is the central morally relevant issue. Hence Jeremy Bentham's famous quote:
The question is not, can they reason? Nor, can they talk? But, can they suffer?
-
Do they make plans and fear death?
What is emotional intelligence?
Of course dogs and cats work well with us, as they have evolved to be what we want, so they can react to our feelings.
Human beings are omnivores, and we have evolved that way, our genes make us ideally adapted to eat meat as part of our diet.
I am speciesist, and I arbitrarily draw that line, which I understand you may not.
But, so what?
Whilst being a vegetarian probably won't do you any harm, the more extreme veganism can be a problem , I have heard, especially if it is inflicted on children.
-
I take that as a serious insult!
In what way is my position not reasonable.
You cannot say animals have the reasoning capacity that we do, unless you can demonstrate this.
Can you?
Pretty much what Alan would say.
Animals can't read books, yeah, yeah.
A cow is a mammal and a human is a mammal, we share the same basic mammalian brain structure and functionality and the presumption is we share the same set of six or seven basic emotions, unless evidence to the contrary is found. What differentiates humans is a layer of additional neocortex giving us more advanced abstract reasoning and language capacities.
But we are still animals.
-
Dogs and pigs feel emotions such as pleasure, fear and love in the same way that a young child does. They don't feel guilt.
Dos do look guilty sometimes, but if could be that they have evolved to look like that by our reaction.
-
Pretty much what Alan would say.
Animals can't read books, yeah, yeah.
A cow is a mammal and a human is a mammal, we share the same basic mammalian brain structure and functionality and the presumption is we share the same set of six or seven basic emotions, unless evidence to the contrary is found. What differentiates humans is a layer of additional neocortex giving us more advanced abstract reasoning and language capacities.
But we are still animals.
We are still animals that have evolved to eat other animals, we agree.
Other animals are food, just as they will kill and eat other animals for their food.
so what?
-
Human beings are omnivores, and we have evolved that way, our genes make us ideally adapted to eat meat as part of our diet.
This always comes up, usually sooner rather than later. It doesn't help your case, though; it tells us what we're able to eat, not what we should. It's a fact, not a value.
I am speciesist, and I arbitrarily draw that line, which I understand you may not.
But, so what?
So it causes/contributes to needless suffering.
-
We are still animals that have evolved to eat other animals, we agree.
Other animals are food, just as they will kill and eat other animals for their food.
so what?
Torridon has told you:
What differentiates humans is a layer of additional neocortex giving us more advanced abstract reasoning and language capacities.
One of those abstract reasoning capacities - arguably the most important - is a theory of mind: extrapolation from our own mental and physical states (which is all we ever know or ever can know) to those of others, which in humans - hopefully - entails an awareness of when we're causing suffering to something that isn't us.
-
We are still animals that have evolved to eat other animals, we agree.
Other animals are food, just as they will kill and eat other animals for their food.
so what?
Speciesism is just a dilute form of racism.
You are related to that cow in the field, just as you are related to that black man from Uganda, just more distantly.
If we can eat a whole cow with no conscience pangs, perhaps it would be ok to take a quick nibble of a passing Ugandan.
-
BTW do you refuse to take all meds which have been tested on animals?
This is a challenge routinely put to those who disagree with the ethics of using animals as experimental subjects - often, I suspect shut them up and close the debate. But let's imagine the experimental work that led to the discovery of insulin was carried out not on dogs but on humans by Nazi scientists during WW2. Would it follow that only those who agreed with forced experiments on human subjects should take insulin to avoid charges of hypocrisy? Or would it better honour the suffering of those who died during the research that we make insulin available to all who need it? If the latter then why should medications formerly tested on animals become ethically out of bounds to those who disagree with the use of animals in medical research, providing the subsequent manufacture of such drugs does not involve ongoing testing?
-
So are you saying if you needed a donor organ to save your life you wouldn't accept one?
If an organ is available by chance due to an accident or conscious donation.....I would accept. Certainly I wouldn't want anyone or anything killed specifically for me.
And the idea of 'growing' or breeding pigs only for organ donation is appalling. Like taking the organs of a mentally retarded child. How about breeding mentally retarded children specifically for organ donation?!
-
Speciesism is just a dilute form of racism.
You are related to that cow in the field, just as you are related to that black man from Uganda, just more distantly.
If we can eat a whole cow with no conscience pangs, perhaps it would be ok to take a quick nibble of a passing Ugandan.
I disagree that it is racism.
I can easily eat animals, and treat all humans equally so this shows you are wrong.
Are you saying that if you ate cows, you would also eat humans?
-
If an organ is available by chance due to an accident or conscious donation.....I would accept. Certainly I wouldn't want anyone or anything killed specifically for me.
And the idea of 'growing' or breeding pigs only for organ donation is appalling. Like taking the organs of a mentally retarded child. How about breeding mentally retarded children specifically for organ donation?!
I arbitrarily draw the line at humans (and perhaps other animals like apes, elephants etc).
So, for me this is a non question. As soon as you introduce humans, then my answer in most cases is NO, they are not food, and not a resource to be exploited against their wishes.
-
I disagree that it is racism.
The argument is that it's indicative of the same sort of mindset - prejudice based upon arbitrary and irrelevant difference(s).
-
The argument is that it's indicative of the same sort of mindset - prejudice based upon arbitrary and irrelevant difference(s).
The difference to me at least, is not irrelevant. They are not humans, they are my food.
You are also related remotely to EVERY living thing on the planet, but you eat vegetables who are after all, distant cousins.
So you have drawn a different arbitrary line to me.
So what?
-
If an organ is available by chance due to an accident or conscious donation.....I would accept. Certainly I wouldn't want anyone or anything killed specifically for me.
And the idea of 'growing' or breeding pigs only for organ donation is appalling. Like taking the organs of a mentally retarded child. How about breeding mentally retarded children specifically for organ donation?!
Pigs aren't humans, so I have absolutely no problem with that at all, I cannot see the difference between eating pork and using a pig's organ to replace one of my own.
-
The difference to me at least, is not irrelevant. They are not humans, they are my food.
But you are simply repeating "food, food, food" without actually justifying why in your opinion it's acceptable to regard animals as food. I think I've tried - however briefly, as I'm posting on my phone as well as dashing around - to say why I think the opposite, but I don't think you've made your case. Simply restating a position of speciesism when speciesism is being questioned doesn't hack it; it would be the same if in a discussion of racism someone merely kept saying "But they're only darkies".
-
But you are simply repeating "food, food, food" without actually justifying why in your opinion it's acceptable to regard animals as food. I think I've tried - however briefly, as I'm posting on my phone as well as dashing around - to say why I think the opposite, but I don't think you've made your case. Simply restating a position of speciesism when speciesism is being questioned doesn't hack it; it would be the same if in a discussion of racism someone merely kept saying "But they're only darkies".
Animals of other species aren't humans and are there for our use, imo.
BTW Are you a pacifist?
-
But you are simply repeating "food, food, food" without actually justifying why in your opinion it's acceptable to regard animals as food. I think I've tried - however briefly, as I'm posting on my phone as well as dashing around - to say why I think the opposite, but I don't think you've made your case. Simply restating a position of speciesism when speciesism is being questioned doesn't hack it; it would be the same if in a discussion of racism someone merely kept saying "But they're only darkies".
You eat vegetables.
They are alive.
We are related to them as well as animals.
Why do you feel it ok to eat one non human cousin rather than another?
What you think makes it ok to eat them, is probably much the same reason I feel it okay to eat other non human cousins.
-
Animals of other species aren't humans
Well ... yes, we know.
and are there for our use, imo.
By whose agreement and by which right?
BTW Are you a pacifist?
Yes. Not absolutely - self-defence, etc.
-
Well ... yes, we know.
By whose agreement and by which right?
Yes. Not absolutely - self-defence, etc.
So if an animal attacked you would you defend yourself, even if it meant killing it?
-
You eat vegetables.
They are alive.
Everything we eat has been alive at some point. Life alone isn't the morally relevant category.
We are related to them as well as animals.
Why do you feel it ok to eat one non human cousin rather than another?
Because some are sentient and some are not. By definition those which are sentient have the capacity to suffer; those which are not do not. That's what the word means. A living but non-sentient thing - like a lettuce - has no capacity to suffer. It has no interests - no preference for one state of affairs over another based on an aversion to negative states (physical pain; psychological fear/anxiety). A lettuce is not, in Peter Singer's terminology, a subject-of-a-life; its existence cannot go better or worse for it because it has no awareness of its existence.
Cows do; carrots don't. There's no need to eat cows.
-
So if an animal attacked you would you defend yourself, even if it meant killing it?
As an absolute last resort, yes. Same goes for humans, come to that.
-
As an absolute last resort, yes.
If your house had a problem with rats and mice, which are a human health problem, how would you deal with it?
-
Everything we eat has been alive at some point. Life alone isn't the morally relevant category.
Because some are sentient and some are not. By definition those which are sentient have the capacity to suffer; those which are not do not. That's what the word means. A living but non-sentient thing - like a lettuce - has no capacity to suffer. It has no interests - no preference for one state of affairs over another based on an aversion to negative states (pain; fear). A lettuce is not, in Peter Singer's terminology, a subject-of-a-life; its existence cannot go better or worse for it because it has no awareness of its existence.
Cows do; carrots don't. There's no need to eat cows.
Cows do not have cares or emotions either, or not sufficient for me to care.
The lettuce has no desire to be eaten either. It has evolved its own way (which we have presumably interfered with for our own ends), it evolved to do what it does to continue. Being eaten was not its objective.
So you have rationalised a different arbitrary line to me.
So what?
You should really, be finding a way to convert sunlight directly to food with no living thing needing to die.
Are you doing that?
-
As an absolute last resort, yes. Same goes for humans, come to that.
In extreme circumstances I would consider humans food as well.
-
I cannot see the difference between eating animals like pigs, and using their organs to save human lives.
There is no difference.
I don't eat animals - others do so by that token no reason why organs from pigs should not be transplanted into humans.
If pigs are bred for slaughter anyway why not breed them for transplants? As long as they have a good life, rooting around in fields.
Better if the pig consents though, preferably carries a donor card and its organs only used if it dies in an accident.
Must admit I thought it had already been done somewhere sometime, thought I saw it on TV years ago. Perhaps I dreamed it.
We're obsessed with prolonging human life.
If your house had a problem with rats and mice, which are a human health problem, how would you deal with it?
Humane mouse trap, i have one and it works.
-
If your house had a problem with rats and mice, which are a human health problem, how would you deal with it?
That has already happened in the case of mice - a few years ago I had an issue of mice getting into the cupboards under the kitchen sink through a tiny, tiny gap in the brickwork. (And mice can get through the smallest of gaps). I bought a couple of live capture traps and some of that expanding foam stuff; loaded up the traps with peanut butter, caught all the mice, let them go in the field next to my house, filled up the hole with foam, job done.
-
That has already happened in the case of mice - a few years ago I had an issue of mice getting into the cupboards under the kitchen sink through a tiny, tiny gap in the brickwork. (And mice can get through the smallest of gaps). I bought a couple of live capture traps and some of that expanding foam stuff; loaded up the traps with peanut butter, caught all the mice, let them go in the field next to my house, filled up the hole with foam, job done.
I do the same, catch them by hand that the cat brings in alive, and release where the cat cannot get them.
I also take spiders outside.
-
Cows do not have cares or emotions either, or not sufficient for me to care.
The lettuce has no desire to be eaten either. It has evolved its own way (which we have presumably interfered with for our own ends), it evolved to do what it does to continue. Being eaten was not its objective.
So you have rationalised a different arbitrary line to me.
So what?
You should really, be finding a way to convert sunlight directly to food with no living thing needing to die.
Are you doing that?
How do you know cows do not have emotions and cares? A severely mentally retarded child also will not have any cares or awareness. So...we could breed such children and use them as organ donors...right?!.
If you have a problem only because they look human, we could perhaps breed them to look a little different. Maybe we could even fertilize and grow them in labs instead of normal birth. Would that be acceptable?
-
In extreme circumstances I would consider humans food as well.
In 1972 there was an air crash in the Andes. It was a good while before the survivors were rescued, they ate the flesh from the dead passengers.
-
Cows do not have cares or emotions either, or not sufficient for me to care.
That's the issue, isn't it - you don't care.
The lettuce has no desire to be eaten either.
A lettuce is not something to which the concept of desire even applies.
It has evolved its own way (which we have presumably interfered with for our own ends), it evolved to do what it does to continue. Being eaten was not its objective.
Correct.
So you have rationalised a different arbitrary line to me.
So what?
Your repeated, rather surly and petulant repetition of "So what?" when people are going to some pains to tell you what (e.g. #80) suggests that they and I are wasting our time.
You should really, be finding a way to convert sunlight directly to food with no living thing needing to die.
Are you doing that?
You're not actually reading any posts in reply to yours at all, are you? I suggest a new user name might be in order.
-
How do you know cows do not have emotions and cares? A severely mentally retarded child also will not have any cares or awareness. So...we could breed such children and use them as organ donors.
If you have a problem only because they look human, we could perhaps breed them to look a little different. Maybe we could even fertilize and grow them in labs instead of normal birth. Would that be acceptable?
As I have already said. NO to humans, I grant ALL humans equal rights.
I draw an arbitrary line for my species.
Animals are food, and a resource, and that is the line I draw.
you kill and eat vegetables because you draw the line differently, but equally arbitrarily.
Why do you not convert sunlight to food?
-
Must admit I thought it had already been done somewhere sometime, thought I saw it on TV years ago. Perhaps I dreamed it.
Oh Lucky Man?
http://rjbuffalo.com/oluckyman/VTS_01_4-00.18.15.255.jpg
-
That has already happened in the case of mice - a few years ago I had an issue of mice getting into the cupboards under the kitchen sink through a tiny, tiny gap in the brickwork. (And mice can get through the smallest of gaps). I bought a couple of live capture traps and some of that expanding foam stuff; loaded up the traps with peanut butter, caught all the mice, let them go in the field next to my house, filled up the hole with foam, job done.
We have never had a problem with rats, thank goodness. However, we did have a mouse problem some years back in an old property and used a humane mouse trap.
-
That's the issue, isn't it - you don't care.
A lettuce is not something to which the concept of desire even applies.
Correct.
Your repeated, rather surly and petulant repetition of "So what?" when people are going to some pains to tell you what suggests that they and I are wasting our time.
You're not actually reading any posts in reply to yours at all, are you? I suggest a new user name might be in order.
I care about the welfare of the cow, and good husbandry, but I do not care that it is ultimately food as well.
The cow does not have desires either, it just lives like a lettuce and is a distant evolutionary cousin that you are happy to kill and eat.
I do not think you can show that eating animals is wrong, just that you do not like it, and they are not the same thing.
-
As I have already said. NO to humans, I grant ALL humans equal rights.
I draw an arbitrary line for my species.
Animals are food, and a resource, and that is the line I draw.
you kill and eat vegetables because you draw the line differently, but equally arbitrarily.
Why do you not convert sunlight to food?
Can you actually 'kill' a vegetable? Surely only something that has a brain and consciousness can be killed in the same way as one can kill a human or animal?
-
I care about the welfare of the cow, and good husbandry, but I do not care that it is ultimately food as well.
As I said ...
The cow does not have desired either
You know this how?
I do not think you can show that eating animals is wrong, just that you do not like it, and they are not the same thing.
Again, you can't show suffering to be wrong to one who doesn't care that suffering is wrong. That's why, in humans, psychopaths are not just incurable but untreatable.
-
Can you actually 'kill' a vegetable? Surely only something that has a brain and consciousness can be killed in the same way as one can kill a human or animal?
Is it alive?
If it lives, it can die.
-
Can you actually 'kill' a vegetable? Surely only something that has a brain and consciousness can be killed in the same way as one can kill a human or animal?
You can kill a vegetable insofar as you can bring an end to the processes that sustain its life - cutting a lettuce or not watering a pot plant, for example.
-
In 1972 there was an air crash in the Andes. It was a good while before the survivors were rescued, they ate the flesh from the dead passengers.
I am sure many people wouldn't. Death isn't that frightening to all people that they would do anything to live.
Would the people in air crash kill some weak person unlikely to live....and eat him?
-
You can kill a vegetable insofar as you can bring an end to the processes that sustain its life - cutting a lettuce or not watering a pot plant, for example.
True, but a plant doesn't feel pain, you have to have a brain and consciousness to experience that.
-
You can kill a vegetable insofar as you can bring an end to the processes that sustain its life - cutting a lettuce or not watering a pot plant, for example.
I also have empathy for houseplants, and my garden plants as well.
I tend and care for them, and wish them no harm.
I feel sorry for dinner plates as well, and use ones at the bottom so they do not feel left out. Crazy I know, but I seem to imbue the plate with sadness at never being picked.
-
True, but a plant doesn't feel pain, you have to have a brain and consciousness to experience that.
Probably, but they can react with the environment to a degree.
-
True, but a plant doesn't feel pain, you have to have a brain and consciousness to experience that.
Precisely!
-
I also have empathy for houseplants, and my garden plants as well.
I tend and care for them, and wish them no harm.
I feel sorry for dinner plates as well, and use ones at the bottom so they do not feel left out. Crazy I know, but I seem to imbue the plate with sadness at never being picked.
So you seem to have a theory of mind with regard to plates, but not to cows.
-
Precisely!
Arbitrary.
It lives.
-
Arbitrary.
It lives.
#80.
-
So you seem to have a theory of mind with regard to plates, but not to cows.
I like cows, and want them treated well, before they become food.
I do not like broccoli and let it live.
-
#80.
Not sure what message 80 has to add.
You make an arbitrary choice and seem to think I should agree.
I don't.
So what?
-
I like cows, and want them treated well, before they become food.
I do not like broccoli and let it live.
So nonsentient broccoli is higher up your ladder of moral concern (even if negatively, since you don't like it) than a sentient cow.
-
Not sure what message 80 has to add.
That life alone isn't the morally relevant category.
You make an arbitrary choice and seem to think I should agree.
I don't.
So what?
#90.
-
So nonsentient broccoli is higher up your ladder of moral concern (even if negatively, since you don't like it) than a sentient cow.
Yes.
You seem to think your arbitrary line, is better than mine.
I think mine is better than yours.
So what?
-
Yes.
You seem to think your arbitrary line, is better than mine.
I think mine is better than yours.
So what?
#80 & #90.
-
That life alone isn't the morally relevant category.
#90.
I say it is.
Now what do we do.
The only reason you do not want it to be, is because it makes your arbitrary line wrong.
-
I say it is.
Now what do we do.
The only reason you do not want it to be, is because it makes your arbitrary line wrong.
My line doesn't entail complicity in entirely needless suffering to those things which can suffer - yours does.
Perhaps you would now like to contradict yourself and argue that there's nothing wrong with suffering? You say you want cows treated well - why? Why does it matter to you if they're not?
-
My line doesn't entail complicity in entirely needless suffering to those things which can suffer - yours does.
Perhaps you would now like to contradict yourself and argue that there's nothing wrong with suffering?
I do not want the animals to suffer.
I want a clean humane kill.
If the animal was happy all it's life, and died without suffering, would you eat meat?
-
I do not want the animals to suffer.
Why not? What is it about suffering, what quality is it that you do not want the animals to experience/undergo it?
I want a clean humane kill.
Which doesn't happen.
If the animal was happy all it's life, and died without suffering, would you eat meat?
No.
-
Why not?
Which doesn't happen.
No.
So why did you mention suffering as that has nothing to do with your position.
I gave you a happy animal that did not suffer and you still would not eat it, so you point about suffering was not relevant.
Perhaps it does not always happen that animal are killed as humanely as I would wish, but in the UK?
Other stuff is not ideal in my life, but I still do it. I drive cars which kill people.
This whole thing goes round and round, because you have a preference that I do not share.
My favourite colour is blue, and yours is red.
so what?
-
So why did you mention suffering as that has nothing to do with your position.
Excuse me?
I gave you a happy animal that did not suffer and you still would not eat it, so you point about suffering was not relevant.
I have no desire to eat meat however produced. There's no nutritional/dietary need for it - it's now established beyond all and any doubt that varied and well-planned vegetarian and vegan diets are not just entirely healthy but confer positive health benefits.
This however is a side issue to suffering, which as a thoroughgoing sentiocentrist is the centre of moral concern.
Perhaps it does not always happen that animal are killed as humanely as I would wish, but in the UK?
What about the UK?
Other stuff is not ideal in my life, but I still do it. I drive cars which kill people.
Accidentally, not intentionally.
This whole thing goes round and round, because you have a preference that I do not share.
I disagree: it goes round and round because you don't seem to read or take on board any of the arguments put to you. The most anybody gets back is a petulant "So what?" Like this:
My favourite colour is blue, and yours is red.
so what?
My preference in colours has nothing to do with suffering.
P. S. Seriously - change your user name.
-
Probably, but they can react with the environment to a degree.
What do you mean by react?
I can't believe this thread has nearly 120 replies already, and only started this morning.
-
What do you mean by react?
Photosynthesis. Phototropism.
I can't believe this thread has nearly 120 replies already, and only started this morning.
It does tend to bring people out fighting!
-
I am sure many people wouldn't. Death isn't that frightening to all people that they would do anything to live.
Would the people in air crash kill some weak person unlikely to live....and eat him?
It was grim. Pity there was so much publicity about that, eating human flesh is nothing to boast about. Though I wasn't in their shoes of course.
-
Oh Lucky Man?
http://rjbuffalo.com/oluckyman/VTS_01_4-00.18.15.255.jpg
Holby City, Rick & Abra (who was played by Rick Mayall) transplanted a pig's kidney into a man.
-
Excuse me?
I have no desire to eat meat however produced. There's no nutritional/dietary need for it - it's now established beyond all and any doubt that varied and well-planned vegetarian and vegan diets are not just entirely healthy but confer positive health benefits.
This however is a side issue to suffering, which as a thoroughgoing sentiocentrist is the centre of moral concern.
What about the UK?
Accidentally, not intentionally.
I disagree: it goes round and round because you don't seem to read or take on board any of the arguments put to you. The most anybody gets back is a petulant "So what?" Like this:
My preference in colours has nothing to do with suffering.
P. S. Seriously - change your user name.
I am the one being rational and you are not.
We both draw arbitrary lines, but only I seem to realise it.
You mentioned suffering as being relevant, but when offered meat that had not suffered, you still say you would not eat it. So suffering is not relevant to your position.
You do not like the thought of eating meat, which is your choice.
I do, so we have a difference of opinion, exactly like the choice of favourite colour.
You cannot show my position to be wrong, not can I yours, as there is no right and wrong here.
I am not asking you to eat meat, but i am quite happy to. Actually mainly chicken and turkey, with only accassional red meat, as a good omnivore that I am.
-
I am the one being rational and you are not.
I don't think I was the one who referred to using dinner plates from the bottom of the stack in case they're sad at not being so used (#101).
We both draw arbitrary lines, but only I seem to realise it.
I don't consider suffering to be arbitrary. What you think of suffering we can't tell, since I asked you (#116) but you didn't respond.
You mentioned suffering as being relevant, but when offered meat that had not suffered, you still say you would not eat it. So suffering is not relevant to your position.
Suffering is the top, bottom, centre, be-all and end-all of my position. I have no need or desire to eat even so-far mythical suffering-free meat, but that's a side issue.
As I have previously said (#118) ::)
You do not like the thought of eating meat, which is your choice.
I do, so we have a difference of opinion, exactly like the choice of favourite colour.
Nothing like favourite colour (#118) - do you read nothing?
You cannot show my position to be wrong, not can I yours, as there is no right and wrong here.
Not to anybody who by their own admission doesn't care about suffering, no (#83).
I am not asking you to eat meat, but i am quite happy to. Actually mainly chicken and turkey, with only accassional red meat, as a good omnivore that I am.
Contradiction in terms to me.
-
I don't think I was the one who referred to using dinner plates from the bottom of the stack in case they're sad at not being so used (#101).
I don't consider suffering to be arbitrary. What you think of suffering we can't tell, since I asked you (#116) but you didn't respond.
Suffering is the top, bottom, centre, be-all and end-all of my position. I have no need or desire to eat even so-far mythical suffering-free meat, but that's a side issue.
As I have previously said (#118) ::)
Nothing like favourite colour (#118) - do you read nothing?
Not to anybody who by their own admission doesn't care about suffering, no.
Contradiction in terms to me.
Why do you mention suffering when I have shown that this is irrelevant to your position.
When asked if you would eat an animal that had not suffered, you still said no. So suffering is not why you do not eat meat.
You are not being logical there.
It is EXACTLY like a favourite colour as it is OPINION.
Worse though, you think I should share you arbitrary position.
I don't. So what? Why is this important to you.
If you care about suffering I am with you, and totally agree that animals raised for food should not suffer.
-
Why do you mention suffering when I have shown that this is irrelevant to your position.
When asked if you would eat an animal that had not suffered, you still said no. So suffering is not why you do not eat meat.
You are not being logical there.
It is EXACTLY like a favourite colour as it is OPINION.
Worse though, you think I should share you arbitrary position.
I don't. So what? Why is this important to you.
If you care about suffering I am with you, and totally agree that animals raised for food should not suffer.
OK, you clearly can't follow any points put to you - I'm either having to repeat something I've previously written or (for the same reason) refer you to a prior post by post number, because you are showing all the signs of dumb incomprehension in asking questions already answered or raising points already addressed. I really don't have time for this - I've said what I've said as well as I'm able on a phone and with limited time, but I don't think you've been reading anything or at any rate comprehending it.
Seriously - after making sure your plates are not feeling left out, change your user name. It's inappropriate.
-
OK, you clearly can't follow any points put to you - I'm either having to repeat something I've previously written or (for the same reason) refer you to a prior post by post number, because you are showing all the signs of dumb incomprehension in asking questions already answered or raising points already addressed. I really don't have time for this - I've said what I've said as well as I'm able on a phone and with limited time, but I don't think you've been reading anything or at any rate comprehending it.
And now you are just being insulting.
You say suffering is the reason you do not eat meat. Then illogically say you would not eat meat that did not suffer.
Can you not see that the two sentences do not agree with each other, and you are not logical.
You are not being honest about your reason for not eating meat, and it is preference.
Why should I care about your preference?
-
I never for one picosecond imagined that you did care. By your own admission caring is not close to the top of your list of priorities.
-
I never for one picosecond imagined that you did care. By your own admission caring is not close to the top of your list of priorities.
Again just insult?
My position is reasoned and logical, your seems to be hysterical.
I am not trying to force my opinion on you, why are you trying to do that to me?
-
Again just insult?
My position is reasoned and logical, your seems to be hysterical.
Your position seems to be founded on nothing but a stroppy teenager's "So what?", sad crockery and asinine comparisons with favourite colours.
As for hysterical: don't use words you don't understand.
I am not trying to force my opinion on you, why are you trying to do that to me?
Because I care about that thing which you do not, viz. non-human suffering.
-
Your position seems to be founded on nothing but a stroppy teenager's "So what?", sad crockery and asinine comparisons with favourite colours.
As for hysterical: don't use words you don't understand.Because I care about that thing which you do not, viz. non-human suffering.
As I explained my morality extends to humans and NOT to animals.
Having said that, I do care about animal suffering.
You reason for not eating meat, is not just due to suffering as I have shown.
I would like all meat to have lived a happy life, and been killed without suffering, and think we should work towards that.
I am guessing that you would still not agree with that?
-
As I explained my morality extends to humans and NOT to animals.
You've asserted this. Not explained it.
Having said that, I do care about animal suffering.
Except when you don't (q.v. #83).
You reason for not eating meat, is not just due to suffering as I have shown.
You didn't have to show it - I said so (#118, #124).
I would like all meat to have lived a happy life, and been killed without suffering, and think we should work towards that.
I am guessing that you would still not agree with that?
Correct.
-
You've asserted this. Not explained it.
Except when you don't (q.v. #83).
You didn't have to show it - I said so.
Correct.
That my morality is for my species is an arbitrary position I take. It needs no more explanation than that. My reasoning for eating meat then follows.
You make a big thing about suffering which is odd, because I agree with you. I do not want the animals to suffer.
I then have no problem eating them, where you do, so suffering is NOT the reason you do not eat meat.
If it was 100% certain that all animals killed for meat were happy and content, and did not suffer, you would still NOT eat them.
So what is the real reason?
-
That my morality is for my species is an arbitrary position I take. It needs no more explanation than that.
Well, yes it does.
My reasoning for eating meat then follows.
As we often tell the theists here, nothing follows from a non-explanation.
You make a big thing about suffering which is odd, because I agree with you. I do not want the animals to suffer.
Again (#116) ::) why not?
I then have no problem eating them, where you do, so suffering is NOT the reason you do not eat meat.
It is the main reason. The predominant reason. The no. 1 reason. Not the sole reason. There is a difference between 'main' and 'only'.
(This cow is very small, Dougal, whereas that cow is big but far away ...).
-
Well, yes it does.
As we often tell the theists here, nothing follows from a non-explanation.
Again (#116) ::) why not?It is the main reason. The predominant reason. The no. 1 reason. Not the sole reason. There is a difference between 'main' and 'only'.
(This cow is very small, Dougal, whereas that cow is big but far away ...).
But you would not eat meat even if there was no suffering.
My morality extends to my species, and is a line I draw. It is arbitrary and needs no more than that.
You kill and eat other living things, so you draw the line in a different place.
So what?
Neither line can be shown to be true and the other false. They are both preferences, nothing more.
You seem to think your preference is the only correct one, but cannot say why.
-
OK, that's enough of your witless shit.
If anybody wants me, I'll be in the kitchen asking my cereal bowls if they're more or less satisfied with how life is going in general at the moment.
-
OK, that's enough of your witless shit.
If anybody wants me, I'll be in the kitchen asking my cereal bowls if they're more or less satisfied with how life is going in general at the moment.
Witless shit!
Way to lose the argument.
-
Witless shit!
Way to lose the argument.
If was lost the first time you demonstrated your dull incomprehension of something already spelled out for you.
-
Just as a thought experiment.
What do you think you might do if you woke up in hospital after having had a serious heart attack and found that you had been given a pig heart transplant?
Pig's heart valves have been used in surgery on humans for over a generation. Indeed, an acquaintance of mine had a pig's heart valve inserted circa 1970 and lived to a ripe old age. What finally killed him was cancer.
-
If was lost the first time you demonstrated your dull incomprehension of something already spelled out for you.
I think it is clear who is shrill hysterical and dim!
-
I think it is clear who is shrill hysterical and dim!
I think it's clear that torridon's #52 was bang on the money; not so much rinse and repeat as mince and repeat.
-
True, but a plant doesn't feel pain, you have to have a brain and consciousness to experience that.
Also a plant doesn't have a nervous system.
-
I think it's clear that torridon's #52 was bang on the money; not so much rinse and repeat as mince and repeat.
I disagree.
Your position is purely subjective as is mine.
The difference is, that I do not try to say your position is wrong.
-
If anybody wants me, I'll be in the kitchen asking my cereal bowls if they're more or less satisfied with how life is going in general at the moment.
Oh :D, you do that too! Kindred spirit. Since being vegetarian my big blue enamelled oval roaster is severely neglected so I call it my "Thing of beauty".
Went out for lunch to a cafe with friend, read the Sun.
Big article on pigs as organ donors, it's hot news.
-
I have not followed this thread but looked in on a few posts on page one and this last page. I note that Shaker did not answer the question about what he would do if he woke to find he had a porcine valve.
Like a very large number of people, I have no intention of stopping eating ham, bacon and pork, and am very grateful to the pig whose valve means my heart works very well nowadays.
-
I have not followed this thread but looked in on a few posts on page one and this last page. I note that Shaker did not answer the question about what he would do if he woke to find he had a porcine valve.
I saw the early question, and replied that it's not even a serious question - in real life it simply just doesn't work like that. It just doesn't.
Otherwise, playing along with somebody's absurd conception of a thought experiment, sue the bastards to the soles of their shoes and the bottom of their bank accounts for every last copper coin for inflicting upon me a medical procedure to which I did not give and would not have given my consent.
-
Maybe nice to be alive and able to sue? Can't see how that would achieve anything when what's done is done.
-
I saw the early question, and replied that it's not even a serious question - in real life it simply just doesn't work like that. It just doesn't.
Otherwise, playing along with somebody's absurd conception of a thought experiment, sue the bastards to the soles of their shoes and the bottom of their bank accounts for every last copper coin for inflicting upon me a medical procedure to which I did not give and would not have given my consent.
And of course you would expect the organ to be removed immediately!
-
And of course you would expect the organ to be removed immediately!
By then the damage is done.
I prefer damage not to be done.
-
Why not?
Even though the removal might kill you, if it was a heart, for instance?
-
Even though the removal might kill you, if it was a heart, for instance?
Yes.
-
Yes.
Hmmmmmm, I wonder if you would if it actually came to that? No doubt you would have to cut it out yourself, because no surgeon is likely to take it out for you.
-
By then the damage is done.
I prefer damage not to be done.
Well, I'll tell you one thing for nothing! :) ! After my aortic valve replacement * , even while I was lying there in ICU with bunches of tubes taking things in and out of my body, I knew I felt better, with a heart that worked properly. Okay, I was not comfortable, but that was very temporary. I recommend that you accept one if it is ever required.
*I apparently had atamponade which is one of the most dangerous things after heart ops and had to be rushed back into theatre, but since I was unconscious for all of that, I did not need to worry!
-
Hmmmmmm, I wonder if you would if it actually came to that?
Ah, the usual thing: receive answer, deny answer.
No doubt you would have to cut it out yourself, because no surgeon is likely to take it out for you.
That's their issue, isn't it, rather than mine? I expect medical people to understand and respect the principles of medical ethics regarding autonomy and informed consent.
I'm more acutely aware of this than most because within the last two years I've had direct personal experience of its being ignored or disregarded.
-
Well, I'll tell you one thing for nothing! :) ! After my aortic valve replacement * , even while I was lying there in ICU with bunches of tubes taking things in and out of my body, I knew I felt better, with a heart that worked properly. Okay, I was not comfortable, but that was very temporary. I recommend that you accept one if it is ever required.
Thanks for the recommendation, but no thanks.
-
Shaker
Do you mean that you would in fact rather die sooner rather than later by refusing to have such a valve if offered? Do you think you would look at all the pros and cons and decide that that is the bottom line for you
(P.S. There is no flippancy at all in those questions, I mention it just in case Gabriella sees this post!? )
-
Shaker
Do you mean that you would in fact rather die sooner rather than later by refusing to have such a valve if offered?
Yes.
Do you think you would look at all the pros and cons and decide tphat that is the bottom line for you
I think I already have.
-
Shaker
thank you for your reply. However, please do not let anything happen to you before the end of my life!!
-
Not everyone wishes to live at all costs and not everyone wishes to exist at the expense of another creature. I don't get why that's so hard to understand.
-
Not everyone wishes to live at all costs and not everyone wishes to exist at the expense of another creature. I don't get why that's so hard to understand.
It's life at all and any cost no matter what, surely?
Which doesn't exactly square with a majority of the population agreeing with the right of people to end their own lives as and when they choose, but don't expect consistency in these things.
-
Not everyone wishes to live at all costs and not everyone wishes to exist at the expense of another creature. I don't get why that's so hard to understand.
I get it & respect it but never been in a life or death situation so far.
Earlier somebody mentioned the plane crash where survivors ate human flesh &the very idea is abhorrent to me. Ithink I'd never do it, would rather die - but if that unlikely thing happened to me, would i change my mind?
We don't know until we're there.
-
I get it & respect it but never been in a life or death situation so far.
Earlier somebody mentioned the plane crash where survivors ate human flesh &the very idea is abhorrent to me. Ithink I'd never do it, would rather die - but if that unlikely thing happened to me, would i change my mind?
We don't know until we're there.
There is no "there" ... we are always here, in a life or death situation at least until we do die. My father had a pig heart valve replacement, dying a few months later when it became infected. My sister died after refusing treatment for flu after far too long spent paralysed by MS.
BeRational is correct in that many of the lines drawn in the argument are arbitrary and it is not possible to come to any objective position on the extent and acceptability of suffering.
Every moment of ones life, one is causing the deaths or affecting the continuing lives of innumerable other lives.
Where you draw the line really depends on the extent of your empathy with them. We try and limit it by including "my family" or "humans", or "the same species", or "entities with nervous systems", "sentient" beings - but ultimately it is illusory - we have no real way of separating our "individual selves" from that of our own gut bacteria or the rest of life in the universe. So what we ultimately do to other lives depends on how connected we feel to them and how responsible we feel we should be for their suffering or destiny - and our own.
-
If I was wearing a hat, Udayana, I'd doff it: what a super post.
-
Agree, G.
-
Me too, great post Udayana.
-
There is no "there" ... we are always here, in a life or death situation at least until we do die. My father had a pig heart valve replacement, dying a few months later when it became infected. My sister died after refusing treatment for flu after far too long spent paralysed by MS.
BeRational is correct in that many of the lines drawn in the argument are arbitrary and it is not possible to come to any objective position on the extent and acceptability of suffering.
Every moment of ones life, one is causing the deaths or affecting the continuing lives of innumerable other lives.
Where you draw the line really depends on the extent of your empathy with them. We try and limit it by including "my family" or "humans", or "the same species", or "entities with nervous systems", "sentient" beings - but ultimately it is illusory - we have no real way of separating our "individual selves" from that of our own gut bacteria or the rest of life in the universe. So what we ultimately do to other lives depends on how connected we feel to them and how responsible we feel we should be for their suffering or destiny - and our own.
Yes...I agree with what you are saying. But obviously it is a little more complicated than that.
What we consider as 'our group' differs from person to person and it is not a random occurrence. In a civilized environment, the more we include within this group the more civilized we are considered. Even from ancient days, it has been true that the more empathetic we are, the more spiritual and divine we are considered. People work towards being more empathetic.
So...there is something to be said in favor of including more and more organisms within 'our group'.
-
Are we really that short of HUMAN donors that we 'need' this kind of post ?!!?!?
-
Are we really that short of HUMAN donors that we 'need' this kind of post ?!!?!?
Apparently human donors are in short supply. You have to opt out, rather than opt in, where donation is concerned here in Wales.
-
Apparently human donors are in short supply. You have to opt out, rather than opt in, where donation is concerned here in Wales.
It's the same in Scotland, and it's being proposed for England too.
A quick bit of research tells me that 6500 people are waiting for a transplant throughout the UK, of whom around 500 die per year still waiting. On the other hand, in England alone - not the UK - 500,000 people die each year. A major chunk of those people would be suitable donors but at present their organs are simply being buried or burnt - it's not hard to think that with an opt out system the organ donation situation could be solved in double quick time. No need to find another way to exploit pigs - we have the solution already.
-
It's not a major chunk, sadly, which is why opting out and not in and not allowing family overrides is essential.
-
It's not a major chunk, sadly, which is why opting out and not in and not allowing family overrides is essential.
Perhaps I wasn't clear - I meant a major chunk of the 500,000 deaths annually in England would be suitable donors whose organs could and would be used if we had the opt out system. Clearly for umpteen reasons many won't be suitable, but with a pool that large to draw upon I reckon the issue of transplant waiting lists could be solved.
I couldn't find figures for how many people are waiting for a transplant in England alone; the 6500 applies to the whole of the UK. Wales and Scotland already have an opt out system, Northern Ireland and England don't (yet) so I'm guessing that that 6500 applies to England and NI in the main.
Completely agree about not allowing overrides by others.
http://tinyurl.com/gpx3tqx
-
No, you were clear.
-
I try to be!
Just discovered that France has the opt out system too.
-
I am of the opinion it is far better to use a pig's organ instead of a live donor, if a suitable dead donor isn't available. A live donor might require their kidney or lung in the future.
-
Shaker
If you needed a new heart valve, would you be happy with a metal (or plastic or whatever is used) one? These are more often used for younger people, I understand, as the tissue ones are only supposed to last for up to ten years.
-
I have very strong reservations about live donorship. There are massive discrepancies between the information given to potential donors in this country and elsewhere (for example in the USA it is accepted that living donation of a kidney can lead to a greater strain on the heart, ongoing mental health issues, and donors are given priority placing on the waiting list as their remaining kidney is more likely to fail) and there is nothing like enough safeguarding to ensure against coercion, even done in all innocence. Counselling and consent should be given before the process starts to ensure that all potential donors aren't under pressure from family - unfortunately I've heard of families being tested and a sibling identified as suitable, at which point the expectation is donation whether they are happy with the process or not.
That doesn't mean I think it shouldn't happen - there are three people who'd get one of my kidneys in a heartbeat - but the way the system works needs to be administered in a better way to safeguard potential donors and the risks honestly explained.
-
I am of the opinion it is far better to use a pig's organ instead of a live donor, if a suitable dead donor isn't available. A live donor might require their kidney or lung in the future.
The point surely is that with an opt-out system both pig organs and those from live donors would be unnecessary.
-
I have very strong reservations about live donorship. There are massive discrepancies between the information given to potential donors in this country and elsewhere (for example in the USA it is accepted that living donation of a kidney can lead to a greater strain on the heart, ongoing mental health issues, and donors are given priority placing on the waiting list as their remaining kidney is more likely to fail) and there is nothing like enough safeguarding to ensure against coercion, even done in all innocence. Counselling and consent should be given before the process starts to ensure that all potential donors aren't under pressure from family - unfortunately I've heard of families being tested and a sibling identified as suitable, at which point the expectation is donation whether they are happy with the process or not.
That doesn't mean I think it shouldn't happen - there are three people who'd get one of my kidneys in a heartbeat - but the way the system works needs to be administered in a better way to safeguard potential donors and the risks honestly explained.
Of course I would donate a lung or kidney to someone in my family who is in need of one. However, if organs from a pig were available, and prove to be suitable that would be a better option, especially as recovery time from surgery at my age would take longer than when I was younger.
-
Avoiding major surgery is always a better option. Not convinced organs from pigs is the way to go.
-
Shaker
If you needed a new heart valve, would you be happy with a metal (or plastic or whatever is used) one? These are more often used for younger people, I understand, as the tissue ones are only supposed to last for up to ten years.
No, I wouldn't go for that either.
-
Avoiding major surgery is always a better option. Not convinced organs from pigs is the way to go.
I think a lot more work needs to be done first before one can be 100% certain pigs' organs are a better option than those of humans.
-
Agreed floo = &would be less unhappy about a plastic one even if it only had a ten year guarantee. Ten years not to be sneezed at.
-
Unfortunately I have already had four of them!! And the year following was coping with recovering from being knocked down by that car!
I'm hoping the tap dancing will make the valve realise the benefits of working properly for longer! :D
-
No dissing of you for having porcine valves Susan! s'great!
Floo & I are talkig hypothetically,not having been in your position.
-
Avoiding major surgery is always a better option. Not convinced organs from pigs is the way to go.
I have no idea either, but the people who are experts in the field will hopefully find out.
-
Both see pigs as things, objects which exist only to serve human desires, crops to be harvested and not the intelligent and affectionate sentient social creatures they actually are.
Those two views of pigs are not mutually exclusive. They do only exist to serve human desires. If everybody stopped eating meat there would be no pigs.
And they are quite intelligent. I wouldn't like to comment on how affectionate they are though.
-
Those two views of pigs are not mutually exclusive. They do only exist to serve human desires. If everybody stopped eating meat there would be no pigs.
And? A good deal for the (then nonexistent) pigs, I'd have thought.
I've never understood the pseudo-argument that any existence no matter how horrific is better than none. Especially since most people support assisted dying, but hey, most people are massive fucking hypocrites anyway.
-
I've never understood the pseudo-argument that any existence no matter how horrific is better than none. Especially since most people support assisted dying, but hey, most people are massive fucking hypocrites anyway.
I toofeel like that Shaker, never understand why people want to hang on to life at any cost when they probably won't be around for too many more years anway BUT is different if there's a good chance of many years of reasonable health, especially for someone not very old who is enjoying life & may have children to bring up.
-
It's being a single mum that's the game changer for me. I kind of have to stay alive as I'm needed. Probably not quite as much as the dog but hey.
-
Yes being a parent alters how you feel about such things. I know someone, my age, who has a disabled son. She carries a card she made herself saying she always wants to be resuscitated because her son is so dependent on her.
-
It's really quite daunting. I try not to think about it.
-
'Hundreds dying because families block organ donation even when relatives are on register'
Hundreds of people are dying needlessly each year waiting for transplants because families are reluctant to talk about whether their relatives actually wanted to donate their organs.
More than three families a week are saying no to organ donation even when relatives have signed the NHS Organ Donor Register, new figures from the NHS show.
Although carrying a donor card demonstrates a legal decision to donate, in practice if a family strongly objects, it does not go ahead.
NHS Blood and Transplant say many families are often unsure and decide it is safer to say no, meaning around 460 lifesaving organ transplants are missed each year.
Last year 457 people died while on the active transplant waiting list and a further 875 people were removed from the list, because they became too ill for an organ. Many of these people will have died shortly after being removed.
http://tinyurl.com/ycsb2pwy
Surely it's now high time to rush in an opt-out system and also to remove the ability of a family to overrule a person's wishes.
-
I think it is wrong for a relative to block a person's right to be an organ donor if they have signed up to it.
-
I would just love somebody who objects to organ donation to read this story then look me in the eye and tell me their opinion is unchanged: http://tinyurl.com/ybfy7oba
-
I think that this article is important because it highlights one reason why people don't give permission - the need to protect the dead person, especially a child, even an adult child. It's not rational but people seldom are following sudden death, and most people who die in circumstances suitable for donation will die suddenly and as a parents especially I can understand the feeling of 'I should have stopped it'.
That doesn't make it right, but it might give an insight as to how hospitals can approach the bereaved - that there are other families who want to protect their loved ones maybe.
-
I would just love somebody who objects to organ donation to read this story then look me in the eye and tell me their opinion is unchanged: http://tinyurl.com/ybfy7oba
I agree, and would also say the same to someone who said we should not use pigs as donors.
-
I agree, and would also say the same to someone who said we should not use pigs as donors.
Except we don't need to use pigs.
-
Except we don't need to use pigs.
But we can, and they work, so why not do so?
-
But we can, and they work, so why not do so?
We do not need to do so. The solution to the shortage of organs is in our hands already without inflicting even more suffering on pigs. There are two solutions to the dearth of organs; one involves inflicting even more suffering on sentient creatures and one doesn't. Since I think suffering is a bad thing the second is preferable. That solution too is tried and tested. We don't have to guess; we know it works (#169; #171; #192).
We've covered all this before.
-
There are some important statistics here.
http://www.itv.com/news/2013-02-11/the-facts-and-figures-and-myths-and-legends-of-organ-donation/
I thought it was closer to 5,000 people per year that die in circumstances where donation is possible.
-
We do not need to do so. The solution to the shortage of organs is in our hands already without inflicting even more suffering on pigs. There are two solutions to the dearth of organs; one involves suffering to sentient creatures and one doesn't. The second is preferable. That solution too is tried and tested. We don't have to guess; we know it works.
We've covered all this before.
I am not sure there is suffering, and even if suffering was not involved, I am guessing you would still object?
I am happy to use both, as there is a shortage, plus you might be able to grow pig organs to be available at will rather than hoping someone compatible will die!
It might me possible to engineer a pigs organs to meet the requirements of the patient, rather than hoping for one to come along.
In that case farming engineered pigs organs would be a much better solution.
-
I am not sure there is suffering, and even if suffering was not involved, I am guessing you would still object?
Correct.
I am happy to use both, as there is a shortage, plus you might be able to grow pig organs to be available at will rather than hoping someone compatible will die!
With such a massive disparity between those who need an organ and the total number of deaths you don't need to hope for it; you'll get it anyway
It might me possible to engineer a pigs organs to meet the requirements of the patient, rather than hoping for one to come along.
In that case farming engineered pigs organs would be a much better solution.
As above.
-
Correct.
With such a massive disparity between those who need an organ and the total number of deaths you don't need to hope for it; you'll get it anyway
As above.
So suffering is irrelevant to your argument.
Just because more people die, does not mean you are bound to get a good match.
If you can grow pigs organs to be a best match for a patient, I would see that as the best way.
In addition, some people do NOT want to donate their organs, and their views take precedence over mine, and yours.
-
But we can, and they work, so why not do so?
I think it is a good idea to use their organs if they work, we eat the flesh of pigs, so why not their organs too?
-
I think it is a good idea to use their organs if they work, we eat the flesh of pigs, so why not their organs too?
Well, I agree.
We can farm them to eat, and I think we should also farm them for organs.
I see no problem with this at all.
-
Correct.
With such a massive disparity between those who need an organ and the total number of deaths you don't need to hope for it; you'll get it anyway
As above.
The problem is that there isn't a disparity, in fact the numbers of suitable deaths to the numbers of people on the waiting lists are very close. This is why every donor matters, why we need an opt out system and why families that overrule their dead relative's wishes are being devastatingly cruel, however unwittingly.
-
The problem is that there isn't a disparity, in fact the numbers of suitable deaths to the numbers of people on the waiting lists are very close. This is why every donor matters, why we need an opt out system and why families that overrule their dead relative's wishes are being devastatingly cruel, however unwittingly.
If there was a suitable pig organ, would you think it would be acceptable to use that?
-
So suffering is irrelevant to your argument.
Far from it, but it's not the only strand of the argument.
Just because more people die, does not mean you are bound to get a good match.
Actually it pretty much does. The number of those in need of an organ is around 7,000. That's a sizeable village. The total number of deaths each year is around 500,000. That's roughly equivalent to Manchester. Rhiannon correctly pointed out that people need to die in certain ways and with necessary conditions to be eligible to donate organs, so you can rule out a certain percentage of that half million immediately. Nevertheless it's a perfectly reasonable assumption that the remainder - those who are eligible to donate - will be so large that it will more than supply the demand for donated organs. And that's even in the absence of the opt-out system which we ought to have by now.
In addition, some people do NOT want to donate their organs, and their views take precedence over mine, and yours.
The selfish, like the poor, are always with us.
-
Shaker
Actually it pretty much does. The number of those in need of an organ is around 7,000. That's a sizeable village. The total number of deaths each year is around 500,000. That's roughly equivalent to Manchester. Rhiannon correctly pointed out that people need to die in certain ways and with necessary conditions to be eligible to donate organs, so you can rule a certain percentage of that half million immediately. Nevertheless It's a perfectly reasonable assumption that the remainder - those who are eligible to donate - will be so large that it will more than supply the demand for donated organs.
So why is there a problem to discuss?
Because people have not opted in which is their choice.
Also, genetically engineered pigs organs I would think would be much better. They can be made to be not rejected by the patient, and be created to order.
If this can be done, it would be a much better solution, than hoping for a suitable match.
If a little girl need 100 pigs to die to save her, I would say "line em up".
-
If there was a suitable pig organ, would you think it would be acceptable to use that?
I am sceptical about this being a good idea. Organ rejection is not uncommon in human to human transplantation and I'm not yet convinced by the science.
Aside from that, in theory I am with Shaker. But theory and reality aren't the same thing.
-
Shaker
So why is there a problem to discuss?
Various reasons.
One is that more people say that organ donation is a good thing than get round to doing anything about it.
If this can be done, it would be a much better solution, than hoping for a suitable match.
Clearly you are again giving the lie to your username by not reading what has been written before.
If a little girl need 100 pigs to die to save her, I would say "line em up".
Yes, I know you would.
Sentimental appeal to emotion noted, though.
-
I'm not sure it's fair to think that those who won't consent to donation are selfish. Confused, mixed up, scared. Yes.
The article says that the girl's dad was reluctant to give up her heart. It's not rational but I can understand it. And harvesting organs is a full on surgical procedure and I can see how that is upsetting, I know people who feel like that about autopsies.
People who are bereaved and in shock aren't best placed to judge most of the time. Hence the need for an opt out, better awareness and better training for those who need to ask relatives for consent.
-
Various reasons.
One is that more people say that organ donation is a good thing than get round to doing anything about it.
Clearly you are again giving the lie to your username by not reading what has been written before.
Yes, I know you would.
Sentimental appeal to emotion noted, though.
It is you that is emotional by thinking that pigs are equal to humans.
They are not.
Genetically engineered pig organs, if they can be done, I think would be a much better solution for human patients.
Unless of course every patient has a twin that dies just when they need an organ.
-
It is you that is emotional by thinking that pigs are equal to humans.
They are not.
They are in the morally relevant criterion, i.e. sentience.
-
They are in the morally relevant criterion, i.e. sentience.
To you, but not to me.
They are a different species that have insufficient sentience for me to care about.
They are a resource, and a potential way to have organs that perfectly match a patients requirement.
You will not get a human match that could be as good as a genetically engineered pig organ, so you are in favour of inferior organs for patients.
-
To you, but not to me.
They are a different species that have insufficient sentience for me to care about.
As I said a long while back, you can't have a discussion about suffering with someone who doesn't care about suffering.
Of course, if it was really about insufficient sentience then we could harvest organisms from the severely mentally handicapped. If that's unacceptable then you're thrown back on the arbitrary and irrational stance of speciesism.
They are a resource, and a potential way to have organs that perfectly match a patients requirement.
To you, but not to me.
You will not get a human match that could be as good as a genetically engineered pig organ, so you are in favour of inferior organs for patients.
Any evidence for this?
-
To you, but not to me.
Any evidence for this?
If pig organ can be genetically engineered to be a match, then it is a match.
You cannot do this sort of engineering in humans.
Your problem is that you do not want to use pigs. That is the whole of your argument.
I do not care that you do not want to use pigs, so you have no real argument.
-
If this works then in theory nobody would need dialysis because organs would be readily available. But it's a big if.
-
If
I asked for evidence, not an if.
Your problem is that you do not want to use pigs.
That, I assure you, is absolutely no problem to me. Rather, a problem to you. And of course a great many pigs.
I do not care that you do not want to use pigs, so you have no real argument.
You've made your callous indifference to suffering abundantly clear.
-
If this works then in theory nobody would need dialysis because organs would be readily available. But it's a big if.
I agree it is a big if, but there are threads on Google showing that this is being worked on.
http://time.com/4896026/pig-organs-humans-crispr-genome-editing/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/pig-human-transplant-organs-xenotransplantation-crispr-cas9-pervs-porcine-retrovirus-a7887071.html
This does not mean that if will be possible, but IF it was, I cannot see a problem with it, and more, I think it would be a fantastic breakthrough.
I think people like Shaker would still not approve, even if the science proves to be sound, and transplants effective.
-
Correct.
-
I asked for evidence, not an if.
That, I assure you, is absolutely no problem to me. Rather, a problem to you. And of course a great many pigs.
You've made your callous indifference to suffering abundantly clear.
This suffering is a complete lie, and a red herring.
At NO point have I advocated suffering, and I say now that I am AGAINST suffering. So please do not lie about my position again.
Just because might be raised as organ donors, this does not mean that they have to suffer.
I get that you do not want the pigs used in this way, but I do.
It is just a difference of opinion.
-
Correct.
Then you have no argument.
It is just emotion for the pigs.
I do not care that pigs are harvested (without suffering), so there is nothing to discuss.
-
This suffering is a complete lie, and a red herring.
At NO point have I advocated suffering, and I say now that I am AGAINST suffering. So please do not lie about my position again.
You advocate eating meat and animal experimentation. Perhaps in your la-la Ladybird land these things don't cause suffering, but in the real world they do on unimaginable scales. Therefore you advocate suffering and don't have the minerals to admit as much.
-
You advocate eating meat and animal experimentation. Perhaps in your la-la Ladybird land these things don't cause suffering, but in the real world they do on unimaginable scales. Therefore you advocate suffering and don't have the minerals to admit as much.
LIAR
-
Then you have no argument.
It is just emotion for the pigs.
I do not care that pigs are harvested (without suffering), so there is nothing to discuss.
That was pretty obvious as soon as you fetched up on this thread with your joke of a name.
-
LIAR
Oooh, the capitals are out now, I'm in big bother.
-
Oooh, the capitals are out now, I'm in big bother.
You are a liar.
-
You advocate eating meat and animal experimentation. Perhaps in your la-la Ladybird land these things don't cause suffering, but in the real world they do on unimaginable scales. Therefore you advocate suffering and don't have the minerals to admit as much.
I can make the same sort of allegation to you.
You advocate humans suffering to the point of death, rather that give them a pig organ.
-
I can make the same sort of allegation to you.
You advocate humans suffering to the point of death, rather that give them a pig organ.
Humans before other animals species.
-
Humans before other animals species.
I agree with you.
Shaker would rather humans die than receive a pigs organ.
-
I agree with you.
Shaker would rather humans die than receive a pigs organ.
If that is really true that is TERRIBLE! :o
-
If that is really true that is TERRIBLE! :o
Well I do not think it is true, but it is like his claim that I advocate suffering of animals just because I am fine with eating them.
I am sure he has the welfare of humans in mind as well, perhaps not as much as me, as I would be prepared to use pigs organs if they make the procedure safe and effective.
-
If that is really true that is TERRIBLE! :o
Goodness me, the capital letter brigade are out in force this afternoon.
-
Goodness me, the capital letter brigade are out in force this afternoon.
Is it true that you would rather humans not have pigs organs, even if it was shown that those organs would be perfectly good for the patient?
-
Is it true that you would rather humans not have pigs organs, even if it was shown that those organs would be perfectly good for the patient?
My position was stated long, but given your penchant for repetition ... a system of presumed consent renders the use of pig organs superfluous. Unnecessary. Redundant. Otiose.
Pigs are being considered only to address the shortage of donors, but with an opt-out system this is no longer a consideration. We know that this is the case on the basis from the evidence of those countries where such a system already exists ... our immediate neighbours for starters.
-
Isn't the biggest difference that potentially there is no need (or a much reduced need) to wait for a suitable match and have dialysis, possibly for years?
-
Isn't the biggest difference that potentially there is no need (or a much reduced need) to wait for a suitable match and have dialysis, possibly for years?
Not sure I understand?
-
Not sure I understand?
“It’s going to make such a huge difference that I don’t think it’s possible to conceive of it,” says Cooper. Organ transplants would no longer have to be emergency surgeries, requiring planes to deliver organs and surgical teams to scramble at any hour. Organs from pigs can be harvested on a schedule, and surgeries planned for exact times during the day. A patient that comes in with kidney failure could get a kidney the next day—eliminating the need for large dialysis centers. Hospital ICU beds will no longer be taken up by patients waiting for a heart transplant."
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/08/pig-organs-for-humans/536307/
Personally I think this scenario is unlikely. But it is where the researchers are trying to head.
-
Would none of those things be the case with opt out?
-
I doubt it. There's still the requirement that each of the 3,500-5,000 people who die in circumstances where they can donate is a match to people on the waiting list. It would be a vast improvement of course but I don't think it is the same kind of fix as having replacement organs ready and waiting for each and every emergency as they arise.
There are other variables. What if driverless cars radically reduce the numbers of road deaths for example?
-
I doubt it. There's still the requirement that each of the 3,500-5,000 people who die in circumstances where they can donate is a match to people on the waiting list.
Isn't this the whole point of opt-out, though? Currently there aren't enough of such people, hence the organ shortage; but with opt-out that available pool of potential donors increases massively from (at best) 5,000 to who knows what - that's the idea of it. I don't know what the increase would be specifically; you'd need somebody like Professor Davey on the case to crunch the numbers and to quantify it in terms of hard data. But I'd put my house on the increase being huge.
-
Isn't this the whole point of opt-out, though? Currently there aren't enough of such people, hence the organ shortage; but with opt-out that available pool of potential donors increases massively from (at best) 5,000 to who knows what - that's the idea of it. I don't know what the increase would be specifically; you'd need somebody like Professor Davey on the case to crunch the numbers and to quantify it in terms of hard data. But I'd put my house on the increase being huge.
I've been doing a spot of googling. Yes the increase is huge but not enough on its own to solve the issue. Plus we'd still probably have a family veto with an opt out - it's easier to legislate against that with an opt in as the donor's wishes are clear - and we don't have the infrastructure to cope with a huge increase in donation as is the case in Spain. It'll help, hugely, clearly. But it won't fix everything.
-
If that is really true that is TERRIBLE! :o
Not terrible, just his pov. We all do die eventually. One could still die with a pig's organ donation, might not even survive the surgery.
-
I expect that the thinking goes along the line of since transplant surgery only occurs in specialist centres, and where the recipients are already very ill and will probably require intensive care post-surgery, whereas potential donors could be in any major hospital site then both the suitability of the organs and practicalities of getting a donor organ to the recipient in time for use.
Presumably the idea is that since transplant patients often have a long history of illness then when the need for a donor organ is needed then (assuming the science works) one sourced from pigs could be arranged without the need to await the death of a suitable human donor, even where the practicalities of acquiring and transporting the organ are do-able.
In essence some pigs will be bred as organ donors, possible for specified patients, and then slaughtered at the point (or nearby) when the organ is needed.
It sounds a bit ghoulish I suppose, but probably no more so than slaughtering pigs to a schedule needed to supply supermarkets with bacon - of course there are different views on this whether using animals as a resource (such as for food) at all.
-
I've been doing a spot of googling. Yes the increase is huge but not enough on its own to solve the issue.
How so (or not so)?
It'll help, hugely, clearly. But it won't fix everything.
Unfortunately not everything can be fixed.
-
People like Shaker are entitled to refuse to have a pig organ inserted in their body, if it is abhorrent to them. Just as those of us who don't have a problem with eating meat from pigs should be entitled to have a pig organ transplant, if needed and it was deemed suitable.
-
Yes. If people eat meat there's no reason not to use parts of the body for other things. However there's nothing terrible in having an opposite opinion.
In this country in recent years pigs have been well looked after. They have a better life than they used to and though they end up on the table, they don't know that. I wouldn't like to read of animal welfare standards slipping, there's no reason why they should. If any of our lives depended on a pig, the least we can do is ensure it has been as happy as possible.
But lets hope we don't need a transplant in the first place.
-
I think most of us know someone who is or has been in this situation. It's wrong to assume that this isn't personal to any of us here to some extent. We just don't know.
-
I agree with Gordon - any wait for a transplant should be avoided and the logistics are not ideal. In theory pig organs should mean no wait, or minimal wait, with far easier logistics. It also removes the need for living donors - something I really have huge reservations about - which reduces the impact on resources - no need for a second lot of major surgery with its attendant complications and long term hazards. Difficult to argue against given that as a society we both eat meat and use pig valves in surgery.
It's all theory though. Not convinced it will work.
Incidentally opt out has been shown to reduce living donorship, something not regarded as desirable by those who think it a better option than deceased donorship.
-
In addition if it can be made to work, the pigs organs would be a better match for the patient, as the pigs organs could be genetically engineered to match.
This could make them a better match than one from another human.
The bottom line is, either you accept harvesting organs from pigs, or you don't. That should be a personal choice.
If people do not want it, then fine, don't have it, but do not presume to speak for others.
Seeking to stop this sort of treatment is backward, and offensive to humankind.
-
My position was stated long, but given your penchant for repetition ... a system of presumed consent renders the use of pig organs superfluous. Unnecessary. Redundant. Otiose.
Pigs are being considered only to address the shortage of donors, but with an opt-out system this is no longer a consideration. We know that this is the case on the basis from the evidence of those countries where such a system already exists ... our immediate neighbours for starters.
I do not think this would be the case.
Also, the genetically engineered organs would always be a better match, and therefore a better chance for the patient.
Also, they could be grown to order, and not have to wait for someone to die.
You care too much about the pigs, and too little about human suffering.
-
I do not think this would be the case.
You do not know this.
Also, the genetically engineered organs would always be a better match, and therefore a better chance for the patient.
Also, they could be grown to order, and not have to wait for someone to die.
OK, I've covered this already. I'm not going to pander to your dull incomprehension by repeating myself yet again.
You care too much about the pigs, and too little about human suffering.
What I care about and do not care about, and how much, and when, are my concern, not yours.
-
I do not think this would be the case.
Also, the genetically engineered organs would always be a better match, and therefore a better chance for the patient.
Also, they could be grown to order, and not have to wait for someone to die.
You care too much about the pigs, and too little about human suffering.
If pigs organs can do a better job than human organs, the more pigs bred specifically for that purpose the better, imo.
-
You do not know this.
OK, I've covered this already. I'm not going to pander to your dull incomprehension by repeating myself yet again.
What I care about and do not care about, and how much, and when, are my concern, not yours.
I said think not know.
Insult and evasion noted.
I can see that you are more concerned about pigs than fellow humans.
That much is clear.
That makes me more moral than you.
-
I can make the same sort of allegation to you.
You advocate humans suffering to the point of death, rather that give them a pig organ.
I have a new aortic valve which is 'porcine tissue'. Without it I would probably be dead by now, instead of feeling very well and as active as ever. I wonder if Shaker thinks that would be prefereable. And I ask this indirectly because I am asking without emotional overtones.
-
Shaker isn't immoral in his views at all, he feels that way and doesn't like the idea of breeding animals for transplant organs. It's not a question of putting animals before humans. The idea is a recent one and we've managed without animal parts, there's a fear that animals will not be properly cared for. I understand where he is coming from but personally would consider the health of homo sapiens - up to a point- as more important than animals. It's quite something though for a person to be prepared to go without certain treatment for the sake of animals and I admire it.
Just last night I heard about someone I know quite well, roughly my age, who had a coronary and has just been given a stent. Not an animal product of course but shows how often people have to have things put into their bodies. He seems to be recovering - might see him tomorrow - it's quite sobering & was so unexpected.
-
I said think not know.
Insult and evasion noted.
I can see that you are more concerned about pigs than fellow humans.
That much is clear.
That makes me more moral than you.
That, as you put it in #222, is "just a difference of opinion."
-
That, as you put it in #222, is "just a difference of opinion."
We have to agree to disagree on the use of animals.
You are not going to change my mind, and I will not change yours.
-
Given the statistics and progress of medical science use of animal organs is pretty much inevitable.
Certainly, the numbers of people that could potentially be saved by transplants will grow year by year, but it seems unlikely that the number of organs recoverable from potential (human) donors would grow at a similar rate.
-
Woman commended posthumously for saving six lives: http://tinyurl.com/ydf8s375
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41671600
Apparently hundreds of families block organ donation, should they be permitted to do that if someone has signed up to be a donor?
-
No
-
No
I agree. My husband and I would be horrified if our children didn't respect our wishes in that regard. Fortunately they are in agreement with us about organ donation and they carry donor cards too.
-
I agree. My husband and I would be horrified if our children didn't respect our wishes in that regard. Fortunately they are in agreement with us about organ donation and they carry donor cards too.
It is a circumstance in which the person cannot be horrified that their wishes aren't being respected though.
-
It is a circumstance in which the person cannot be horrified that their wishes aren't being respected though.
True, I was waiting for you to point that out. ;D
-
It is a circumstance in which the person cannot be horrified that their wishes aren't being respected though.
No but people make such arrangements - as they do when they make a will or take out life insurance - in the expectatation that they have made their wishes known and will be respected. Piss all over that and why bother with any kind of future-orientated plan at all?
-
True, I was waiting for you to point that out. ;D
I think though that's the issue. If a person is dead, and their relatives are all shouting No!!!!!!!, then it is surely the living that take precedence in making the decision, or rather that is what emotionally has a pull?
-
If emotion is the sole arbiter here that's pretty much exactly and precisely why relatives should have no say in the matter.
-
No but people make such arrangements - as they do when they make a will or take out life insurance - in the expectatation that they have made their wishes known and will be respected. Piss all over that and why bother with any kind of future-orientated plan at all?
I think people feel different about this somehow, that isn't saying it's right. I've already stated I don't think relatives should be able to countermand the wishes of the dead person. Though say for example someone in their will stated that they wanted their body to be eaten by someone who had agreed to do so. I would suggest that many people who would be for wanting the transplants to go ahead against the wishes of relatives, would want them to be able to stop the cannibalism.
-
If emotion is the sole arbiter here that's pretty much exactly and precisely why relatives should have no say in the matter.
Who is suggesting emotion as the sole arbiter?
-
I think though that's the issue. If a person is dead, and their relatives are all shouting No!!!!!!!, then it is surely the living that take precedence in making the decision, or rather that is what emotionally has a pull?
As so many people are queuing up for organs, all organ donor's wishes should be respected, no matter how upset the relatives are about it. I realise that is easier said than done, but if the law made it quite clear this would be the case, the hospital wouldn't be subject to emotional blackmail.
-
As so many people are queuing up for organs, all organ donor's wishes should be respected, no matter how upset the relatives are about it. I realise that is easier said than done, but if the law made it quite clear this would be the case, the hospital wouldn't be subject to emotional blackmail.
Let me make clear, I believe in an opt out policy not an opt in one but I think that respecting the wishes of the dead is not a simple principle.
-
Let me make clear, I believe in an opt out policy not an opt in one but I think that respecting the wishes of the dead is not a simple principle.
I don't think it's difficult.
If you've made your wishes re: organ donation official, your wishes carry the day. That's it. Some might say that objections from relatives are understandable if misguided, but not me - that doesn't seem to be borne out by one of the articles linked to above. Predominantly it seems to be based on the 'ick' factor (a dead relative being operated on to retrieve usable organs), which we don't allow to carry the day in other contexts.
People make wills and expect their wishes as enshrined therein to be respected. There's a legal avenue to challenge wills, but unless there are very good grounds for suspecting something genuinely amiss - mental imbalance or coercion - I don't agree with that any more than I do with the ability of relatives to override a person's altruistic wish to help others.
-
I don't think it's difficult.
If you've made your wishes re: organ donation official, your wishes carry the day. That's it. Some might say that objections from relatives are understandable if misguided, but not me - that doesn't seem to be borne out by one of the articles linked to above. Predominantly it seems to be based on the 'ick' factor (a dead relative being operated on to retrieve usable organs), which we don't allow to carry the day in other contexts.
People make wills and expect their wishes as enshrined therein to be respected. There's a legal avenue to challenge wills, but unless there are very good grounds for suspecting something genuinely amiss - mental imbalance or coercion - I don't agree with that any more than I do with the ability of relatives to override a person's altruistic wish to help others.
And yet we don't allow the cannibalism will. And the fact that wills are challenged for all sorts of reasons which you are happy with means the wishes of the dead are not always respected, and many of those challenges are on emotional grounds.
Rationally, I am not sure I see the case for respecting the wishes of the dead as that strong.
-
I've just paid the road tax for my car on line, they were promoting organ donation there, although I have already posted my willingness to donate on my licence, thought it'd be a good thing to underline it.
I've also donated any remaining parts of my bod, when I'm dead, to a good medical University for whatever purposes they like, let's face it none of it's worth much to any of us when we have finally gone on our way, it would more than likely save lives via helping to teach a new generation of doctors.
I'm all for organ donation, all Werlitzers, every single one, should be donated to be ground to powder before melting the powder down in a furnace with anything remaining dumped far out at sea.
ippy
-
Let me make clear, I believe in an opt out policy not an opt in one but I think that respecting the wishes of the dead is not a simple principle.
If it is for the good of others, why is it hard to respect?
-
If it is for the good of others, why is it hard to respect?
It isn't but then you are adding respect the wishes of the dead 'if they are for the good of others'. Btw if the dead person wished to be eaten by someone who would be made happy bu it, would you support that?
-
It isn't but then you are adding respect the wishes of the dead 'if they are for the good of others'. Btw if the dead person wished to be eaten by someone who would be made happy bu it, would you support that?
That is rather different as cannibalism is illegal. However, if they wished to be fed to zoo animals and that was permitted, I would have no problem with it. I just can't imagine why anyone would object to their relative's organs being used to help others.
-
That is rather different as cannibalism is illegal. However, if they wished to be fed to zoo animals and that was permitted, I would have no problem with it. I just can't imagine why anyone would object to their relative's organs being used to help others.
That something is legal or illegal here is irrelevant. You object to the relatives opinion being consideted but that is legal.
-
That something is legal or illegal here is irrelevant. You object to the relatives opinion being consideted but that is legal.
The law states that consent lies with the deceased, but in practice, relatives' wishes are always respected.
In the case of organ donation relatives wishes should not be respected if they go against the wishes of the organ donor.
-
The law states that consent lies with the deceased, but in practice, relatives' wishes are always respected.
In the case of organ donation relatives wishes should not be respected if they go against the wishes of the organ donor.
They are respected because it isn't illegal to respect them.
-
They are respected because it isn't illegal to respect them.
It should be illegal not to give the donated organs to those who are in need of them.
-
It should be illegal not to give the donated organs to those who are in need of them.
So given legality isn't a reason to say something is wrong, what do you think about the cannibalism question?
-
They are respected because it isn't illegal to respect them.
The failing of that is twofold:
(1) Something which is already a legal principle is routinely flouted in practice (#281);
(2) Laws change - by your own admission you support a change in English law* from an opt in to an opt out system.
* Opt out already exists in Wales and is in progress in Scotland.
-
The failing of that is twofold:
(1) Something which is already a legal principle is routinely flouted in practice (#281);
(2) Laws change - by your own admission you support a change in English law* from an opt in to an opt out system.
* Opt out already exists on Wales and Scotland.
Sorry, you appear a tad confused here. Respecting the wishes of the relatives is not illegal in Scotland or England. There is a difference between it being against a principle and being illegal.
And yes, Wales does have an opt out already, good for then but then they are from that viewpoint irrelevant to the discussion because they did the right thing in our opinions. Scottish govt plans to but we don't have it yet.
-
Interestingly there is the figure of 9 refusals last year in Wales, and I am not sure how that works in an Opt Out System.
-
So given legality isn't a reason to say something is wrong, what do you think about the cannibalism question?
I suppose if it was legal to eat humans and there was a market for it, and someone wished to be served up for Sunday lunch I guess it would be ok, but don't invite me to partake. ;D
-
I suppose if it was legal to eat humans and there was a market for it, and someone wished to be served up for Sunday lunch I guess it would be ok, but don't invite me to partake. ;D
Why does it matter what's legal? We are talking about what should be legal! Are you saying if it was legal to kill and eat gay men that would be OK? No, so why indulge in a irrelevance?
-
Why does it matter what's legal? We are talking about what should be legal! Are you saying if it was legal to kill and eat gay men that would be OK? No, so why indulge in a irrelevance?
It was you who brought up cannibalism, not me.
-
It was you who brought up cannibalism, not me.
And? Didn't say you did bring it up. We have established you think that legality isn't important to what you think should be legal.
ETA: just to note in the above post I am using 'you' to refer to Floo, not in the sense of 'one'
-
And? Didn't say you did bring it up. We have established you think that legality isn't important to what you think should be legal.
ETA: just to note in the above post I am using 'you' to refer to Floo, not in the sense of 'one'
Sorry I have no idea what you are on about, but shall leave it at that.
-
On organ donation...one more aspect needs to be considered.
It has been proven recently that people in a vegetative state actually do have consciousness and are even able to communicate using certain technology.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/09/vegetative-state-vagus-nerve-stimulation-health-science/
It has also been found that people believed to be dead (even brain dead) continue to have consciousness.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mind-works-after-death-consciousness-sam-parnia-nyu-langone-a8007101.html
Leaving aside the more dramatic aspects of life after death....the issue of organ removal under such conditions becomes relevant. The patient could very well be aware that his organs are being removed. A horrible situation.
-
The consultation on introducing an opt-out/presumed consent system in England starts today: https://tinyurl.com/y7ncsfnr
-
I've never understood the pseudo-argument that any existence no matter how horrific is better than none.
How do you know that the pig regards its existence as horrific?
-
How do you know that the pig regards its existence as horrific?
Oh I forgot - you're the one who denies the capacity for suffering in non-human animals, aren't you.
-
Oh I forgot - you're the one who denies the capacity for suffering in non-human animals, aren't you.
Answer the question.
-
Bollocks.
-
Bollocks.
I'll take that as an admission that you can't answer the question which renders a fair amount of your position as invalid.
-
I'll take that as an admission that you can't answer the question which renders a fair amount of your position as invalid.
Take it however the fuck you like. I don't really want to be bored by you any longer.
-
Take it however the fuck you like. I don't really want to be bored by you any longer.
So your credibility on the subject of animal farming is flushed down the toilet. If you had an argument, you would have presented it instead of attacking me.
-
So your credibility on the subject of animal farming is flushed down the toilet. If you had an argument, you would have presented it instead of attacking me.
The argument has been presented throughout the 13 pages of this thread. I've explained it for you but understanding it is your responsibility. As with Rhiannon, claiming victory on no grounds whatever clearly seems to be your bag.
-
The argument has been presented throughout the 13 pages of this thread. I've explained it for you but understanding it is your responsibility.
So answer my question then.
-
So answer my question then.
Arseholes.
-
Joan Bakewell has a series on talking about death - I meant to listen to the first programme but forgot. However, a friend was telling me that the subject of donating bodies for dissection and teaching purposes was discussed. Not only are whole bodies most definitely still required, but surgeons who want to work out a new way of performing some particular operation need that particular part of a body to test it on. I thought this was very interesting.
-
Joan Bakewell has a series on talking about death - I meant to listen to the first programme but forgot. However, a friend was telling me that the subject of donating bodies for dissection and teaching purposes was discussed. Not only are whole bodies most definitely still required, but surgeons who want to work out a new way of performing some particular operation need that particular part of a body to test it on. I thought this was very interesting.
They can have my body and that of my husband.
-
It's an important point - quite apart from organ donation there's still a demand for bodies for medical research. Skin is especially useful, I gather.
-
Earlier this year a friend’s dad died and asked for his body to be donated for research and it was declined on the basis that they had too many donated already and had no storage. My friend had to arrange a cremation instead, which wasn’t what her dad had wanted.
-
Earlier this year a friend’s dad died and asked for his body to be donated for research and it was declined on the basis that they had too many donated already and had no storage. My friend had to arrange a cremation instead, which wasn’t what her dad had wanted.
Yes, I too have heard that point mentioned occasionally. My friend said that the programme also mentioned the Human Tissue Authority as the place to refer to. I intend to look at the web site.
-
Earlier this year a friend’s dad died and asked for his body to be donated for research and it was declined on the basis that they had too many donated already and had no storage. My friend had to arrange a cremation instead, which wasn’t what her dad had wanted.
I have also heard it isn't easy to get your body accepted for research purposes.
-
I have also heard it isn't easy to get your body accepted for research purposes.
Necessarily so, as the criteria for acceptance are so stringent. Most people die old and ill in some way, shape or form, whereas the ideal subjects are young and healthy.
-
Necessarily so, as the criteria for acceptance are so stringent. Most people die old and ill in some way, shape or form, whereas the ideal subjects are young and healthy.
It is far better if animal organs can be used as there would be an unlimited supply.
-
It is far better if animal organs can be used as there would be an unlimited supply.
No it wouldn't. Far better for whom? Not for the animals born to suffer for another exploitative and abusive human venture.
It would be far better if we had presumed consent. Which it looks as though we will.
-
No it wouldn't. Far better for whom? Not for the animals born to suffer for another exploitative human venture.
It would be far better if we had presumed consent. Which it looks as though we will.
What's your evidence for this?
-
What's your evidence for this?
For which bit? The presumed consent system? From the countries which already have such a system in place.
https://tinyurl.com/yasr9ujc
https://tinyurl.com/yblfvbwm
https://tinyurl.com/y7k8xemx
-
For which bit?
That it will improve things to have presumed consent. There's not evidence that it has improved things in Wales, and people who have definitely opted out now definitely cannot be donors - maybe their families would have consented if they hadn't.
More here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41199918
-
There's not evidence that it has improved things in Wales
Perhaps not in Wales, though that may be due the short space of time the opt-out system has been in place. Furthermore, your link with regard to Wales is contradicted here: https://tinyurl.com/y88bw4jl
In the other countries which have had the system (usually for considerably longer) the evidence shows substantial increases in organ donation - links provided in previous post. Edited highlights:
Explicit opt-out laws have long been among the major interventions used to increase the pool of potential donors in countries such as Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Turkey. There is evidence that supports the association between presumed consent and increased donation rates and that countries with opt-out laws have rates 25 to 30% higher than those in countries requiring explicit consent.
(World Health Organisation).
In countries with an opt-out policy - that is everyone is on the register - it is seen that the vast majority remain on the register.
It was estimated that moving to an-opt out system would increase effective donation rates by 50 per cent. To examine this, Eric Johnson and Daniel Goldstein in their well-known study Do defaults save lives? analysed the actual number of cadaveric - that's a dead body intended for dissection - donations made per million across a large list of countries, with data from 1991 to 2001.
They found that when donation is the default, there is a 16.3 per cent increase in donation, increasing the donor rate from 14.1 million to 16.4 million.
When looking only at 1999 for a broader set of European countries, including many more from Eastern Europe, a study led by Ronald Gimbel reported an increase in the rate from 10.8 million to 16.9 million - a 56.5 per cent increase.
So, the evidence so far is pretty convincing and is certainly something the Department of Health should at least trial in the UK.
(University of Warwick).
If you want the evidence ("That it will improve things to have presumed consent"), there it is.
-
And yet Sweden and Luxembourg, for example, still have among the lowest rates of donation in Europe. And France and Brazil saw declines in donation.
I've been reading comments on Welsh websites (newspapers for example) where people have deliberately;y opted out because they don't like the government interfering in what they see as a personal autonomous decision. It's not a point of view that I agree with, but it's one that people hold.
Where there is a big rise in donations it is only in countries where there is a strong incentive (e.g. your relations get priority should they need a transplant) or no opt out. Not what is proposed for here.
Oh, and your Guardian link - a year out of date.
From what I've seen it's talking about death, donation and what difference it makes that will have the biggest effect. These are conversations we just don't have enough. It should be discussed in schools so that young people grow up knowing about the importance of donation. And families should no longer be able to overrule the wishes of someone who has registered.
-
And yet Sweden and Luxembourg, for example, still have among the lowest rates of donation in Europe.
Is population size taken into account? I mean, you can hire Luxembourg for the weekend.
And France and Brazil saw declines in donation.
I've been reading comments on Web;sh websites (newspapers for example) where people have deliberately;y opted out because they don't like the government interfering in what they see as a personal autonomous decision. It's not a point of view that I agree with, but it's one that people hold.
The silly, like the poor, are always with us.
Where there is a big rise in donations it is only in countries where there is a strong incentive (e.g. your relations get priority should they need a transplant) or no opt out. Not what is proposed for here.
I know of no evidence for that. Preferential treatment for relatives sounds at the very least unethical and very probably illegal - where does such a system obtain?
-
No it wouldn't. Far better for whom? Not for the animals born to suffer for another exploitative and abusive human venture.
It would be far better if we had presumed consent. Which it looks as though we will.
We eat animals like pigs, so why shouldn't we use their organs too? We aren't all veggies, thank goodness.
-
We eat animals like pigs, so why shouldn't we use their organs too? We aren't all veggies, thank goodness.
It might be possible to engineer the pig organ to be a match for a particular human, thus making the rejection risk much less.
It might also be possible in future to grow individual organs without the need for a donor animal, which would be best, but in the meantime, using a pig is in my opinion, justified.
-
We eat animals like pigs, so why shouldn't we use their organs too? We aren't all veggies, thank goodness.
well said Floo,
btw , I'm more of a vaggie than a veggie :o
-
There are too many pig headed people already.
-
It might be possible to engineer the pig organ to be a match for a particular human, thus making the rejection risk much less.
It might also be possible in future to grow individual organs without the need for a donor animal, which would be best, but in the meantime, using a pig is in my opinion, justified.
Yes it would be wonderful if one day it was possible to grow individual organs without any donor being needed.
-
Yes it would be wonderful if one day it was possible to grow individual organs without any donor being needed.
I agree, but I would still eat pigs!
-
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/164976/israel-organ-donation
-
For those who object to the human animal eating meat, which is natural as we are carnivores, how do you view carnivores of other species?
-
For those who object to the human animal eating meat, which is natural as we are carnivores, how do you view carnivores of other species?
Omnivores rather than carnivores, followed by an appeal to nature https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature, and an irrelevance.
-
Omnivores rather than carnivores, followed by an appeal to nature https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature, and an irrelevance.
Why is it an irrelevance?
-
Why is it an irrelevance?
Because morality is about responsibility in most views. Just as a toddler cannot consent to sex, the position of most people on here is other animals as far as we know do not understand morality in this way. Since we cannot be sure of their understanding we don't prosecute them for murder.
-
Because morality is about responsibility in most views. Just as a toddler cannot consent to sex, the position of most people on here is other animals as far as we know do not understand morality in this way. Since we cannot be sure of their understanding we don't prosecute them for murder.
How on earth can you compare having sex with a child to a human eating meat?
-
How on earth can you compare having sex with a child to a human eating meat?
As covered it's highlighting the idea that since a toddler cannot consent it is not seen as responsible.
-
For those who object to the human animal eating meat, which is natural as we are carnivores, how do you view carnivores of other species?
We aren't carnivores and we don't need to eat meat.
-
We aren't carnivores and we don't need to eat meat.
We don't need to do a lot of things, so what?
-
The main point of Maeght's post is that we humans aren't naturally carnivorous. Those of us who eat meat do so because we want to, not because we will die without it.
-
We aren't carnivores and we don't need to eat meat.
No, we are omnivores and our digestive system has evolved to accommodate that fact. Whilst we can mange without meat, it is harder to get a balanced diet if we don't eat some meat.
-
No, we are omnivores and our digestive system has evolved to accommodate that fact. Whilst we can mange without meat, it is harder to get a balanced diet if we don't eat some meat.
Yes it is.
-
We don't need to do a lot of things, so what?
My point of view is that if we don't need to do something which causes suffering and death of sentient beings then I don't want to do that thing. You may feel differently but worth pointing out now and again that we don't need to eat meat and can be meat free fairly easily these days I think. It was also part of a response to the post that we are carnivores, which we aren't of course, and the appeal to nature.
-
No, we are omnivores and our digestive system has evolved to accommodate that fact. Whilst we can mange without meat, it is harder to get a balanced diet if we don't eat some meat.
Agreed.
-
Agreed.
Harder but not that difficult these days.
-
We aren't carnivores and we don't need to eat meat.
Track back through our ancestors and find a place where a human species evolved from non-animal-eating ape ancestor.
-
It doesn't matter what we evolved from. We aren't carnivores. My cat is a carnivore. I'm not. I satisfy my omnivorous diet by eating eggs and dairy and I am able to choose not to eat meat, staying well without it. It's really not difficult at all to get everything I need nutritionally.
-
It doesn't matter what we evolved from. We aren't carnivores. My cat is a carnivore. I'm not. I satisfy my omnivorous diet by eating eggs and dairy and I am able to choose not to eat meat, staying well without it. It's really not difficult at all to get everything I need nutritionally.
If that suits you no problem, I like meat in moderation, and will continue to eat it.
-
If that suits you no problem, I like meat in moderation, and will continue to eat it.
Where have I said that you shouldn't?
-
Track back through our ancestors and find a place where a human species evolved from non-animal-eating ape ancestor.
Why?
-
Where have I said that you shouldn't?
I didn't say you had, did I? ::)
-
Why?
Because, as far as I know, our species would not have survived so successfully if it had not had such a widely varied diet, and because there were times when plants and fruit would not have been available, whereas people tended to live almost exclusively - and again as far as I know - by water, so that they had fish to sustain them.
Do you think our species would have evolved as we are without meat being included in the diet of our ancestor ape and , therefore, inherited by us via natural selection and random mutations resulting in what we are?
-
Because, as far as I know, our species would not have survived so successfully if it had not had such a widely varied diet, and because there were times when plants and fruit would not have been available, whereas people tended to live almost exclusively - and again as far as I know - by water, so that they had fish to sustain them.
Do you think our species would have evolved as we are without meat being included in the diet of our ancestor ape and , therefore, inherited by us via natural selection and random mutations resulting in what we are?
What relevance does our past evolution and habitat have when we are talking about our present day diet?
-
What relevance does our past evolution and habitat have when we are talking about our present day diet?
Hmmmm, I'd say that unless we maintain those traits which could possibly, over a very long period of time of course, become apparently unnecessary and fail to be naturally selected for, so that when another catastrophe arrives (meteor, supervolcano eruption, etc)the human species could well find itself becoming extinct because it will not have the adaptations it needs.
-
What relevance does our past evolution and habitat have when we are talking about our present day diet?
Because out digestive systems have evolved to process a diet that contains some meat. A diet containing some meat is optimal for humans.
-
Hmmmm, I'd say that unless we maintain those traits which could possibly, over a very long period of time of course, become apparently unnecessary and fail to be naturally selected for, so that when another catastrophe arrives (meteor, supervolcano eruption, etc)the human species could well find itself becoming extinct because it will not have the adaptations it needs.
I think you are conflating the loss of knowledge and skills which helped us survive in difficult and different habitats with evolution. Of course, in the event of some major catastrophe the loss of such skills could effect our survival. So should we avoid living in houses with central heating, mains water, mains electricity and the like just in case?
-
Because out digestive systems have evolved to process a diet that contains some meat. A diet containing some meat is optimal for humans.
Optimal in what way?
-
Optimal in what way?
Optimal for getting the required nutrients out of the diet. What other way is there?
-
Otimal for getting the required nutrients out of the diet. What other way is there?
Overall health?
There are various views and studies comparing meat eating v vegetarian v vegan diets, but I think it is clear that in our modern world it is perfectly possible to get all the nutrients we need from a vegetarian diet fairly easily. It is harder with a vegan diet but not impossible. Many meat eaters are deficient in certain nutrients of course. In a different time or situation meat was the easiest source for man to get those nutrients. It isn't necessary now. It may be in the future following a break down in our structures and society. As I said I am not comfortable eating meat when it is not necessary to do so. If others are then that's up to them as far as I'm concerned.
-
Overall health?
There are various views and studies comparing meat eating v vegetarian v vegan diets, but I think it is clear that in our modern world it is perfectly possible to get all the nutrients we need from a vegetarian diet fairly easily. It is harder with a vegan diet but not impossible. Many meat eaters are deficient in certain nutrients of course. In a different time or situation meat was the easiest source for man to get those nutrients. It isn't necessary now. It may be in the future following a break down in our structures and society. As I said I am not comfortable eating meat when it is not necessary to do so. If others are then that's up to them as far as I'm concerned.
That is still short-term, current day thinking. Jeremy has said it much better than I have.
-
That is still short-term, current day thinking. Jeremy has said it much better than I have.
Jeremy hadn't responded to that post or addressed the point I made to you about other skills and knowledge. Why don't you give it a try?
Edit: Sorry, that sounded more confrontational than it was meant to.
-
Isn’t the issue now that our ‘skills and knowledge’ have resulted in factory farming, resulting not only in greater suffering for animals than in either hunter gatherer societies or traditional mixed farming, but in overuse of antibiotics and pesticides, chemical processing etc - things we definitely didn’t evolve to eat or have in our environment. Yes, it’s possible to source organic, free range meat, but at a price, and even then labels can be deceptive.
As Maeght says, what we evolved to eat no longer bears much resemblance to our modern day reality.
-
Overall health?
There are various views and studies comparing meat eating v vegetarian v vegan diets, but I think it is clear that in our modern world it is perfectly possible to get all the nutrients we need from a vegetarian diet fairly easily.
So you keep saying and I agree it is true. But possible is not the same as optimal.
If you want to be a vegetarian, I have no problem with that and I think some of the vegetarian arguments are valid. Many of us eat too much meat. A lot of the animals used are kept in inhumane conditions (that applies to animals kept for dairy and textiles too, of course). On the other hand, a lot of sentient animals only existed at all because they are tasty to humans. Then again, many sentient animals never had the chance to exist because they were too tasty to humans.
But bacon sandwiches, omelettes, cheese, leather and wool tell me that we cannot live without a dependence on animals for the moment.
-
I think you are conflating the loss of knowledge and skills which helped us survive in difficult and different habitats with evolution. Of course, in the event of some major catastrophe the loss of such skills could effect our survival. So should we avoid living in houses with central heating, mains water, mains electricity and the like just in case?
No I was not conflatinf practical skills with evolution. We had already evolved to be the species we are today before we found we had practicll skills. The physical body, the brain, nervous system etc were complete. They were, and are, as they were because of the multi-million-years process of evolution. To take the risk of no longer eating meat is a risk, however unlikely, of allowing the survival of those with, say no canines, allowing for this trait tnot to become naturally selected. Okay, the chance is unlikely, but such descendants would be far less likely to survive a catastrophe.
Jeremy hadn't responded to that post or addressed the point I made to you about other skills and knowledge. Why don't you give it a try?
Edit: Sorry, that sounded more confrontational than it was meant to.
No worries! I think what Jeremy said is definitely relevant though.
-
Fine.
-
No I was not conflatinf practical skills with evolution. We had already evolved to be the species we are today before we found we had practicll skills. The physical body, the brain, nervous system etc were complete. They were, and are, as they were because of the multi-million-years process of evolution. [
Agreed - not sure where continuing to eat meat comes into that though.
To take the risk of no longer eating meat is a risk, however unlikely, of allowing the survival of those with, say no canines, allowing for this trait not to become naturally selected.
Our canine teeth are needed for us to consume many things other than cooked meat, such as root vegetables, or fruit. If we all turned to drinking liquidised soup, then maybe, but I don't think we really have any worries about our canine teeth disappearing. I would think that the more likely issue would be our ability to digest meat.
Okay, the chance is unlikely, but such descendants would be far less likely to survive a catastrophe.
As I suggested though, there are many other aspects of modern human life which could result in humans unable to survive in the event of a major catastrophe. Why focus only on meat consumption? I would certainly think the loss of skills needed to survive in such a scenario is much more 'concerning'.
No worries! I think what Jeremy said is definitely relevant though.
Relevant but not directly answering my points to you. Nice to hear your own response.
-
Agreed - not sure where continuing to eat meat comes into that though.
It seems clear to me that, if a catastrophe happened and you found yourself still alive and needing to find water and food, your survival instincts would enable you to kill and eat, probably raw, something like a rabbit if you can catch it. That meat would provide you with the energy you'd need to live another day. You would still have the brain to enable you to think of a strategy to catch it.
-
It seems clear to me that, if a catastrophe happened and you found yourself still alive and needing to find water and food, your survival instincts would enable you to kill and eat, probably raw, something like a rabbit if you can catch it. That meat would provide you with the energy you'd need to live another day. You would still have the brain to enable you to think of a strategy to catch it.
Your survival instincts would drive the need to but not enable you to, that would come more from your skills and knowledge. You indicate this by saying 'if you can catch it'. You haven't said why you are only focusing on some distant possible evolutionary change coming into play in some hypothetical scenario rather than the decline in skills and knowledge which is more likely to have an impact.
-
Its nice to see so many westerners supporting vegetarianism. Something that was inconceivable a few decades ago.
I remember in 1971 when my parents, sis and I took a holiday in Europe and London....no one even understood what 'vegetarian' meant.
In London we somehow managed to find an Indian restaurant (Khyber Pass) and had veg Indian food. In most other places for nearly 15 days, we had to manage with bread, butter, fruit juice, cornflakes. Even french fries were fried in animal fat those days. Finally, nearly at the fag end of our trip, surprisingly we found good veg (Indian) food in Zurich.
On our recent Europe trip last year, it was veg Indian food morning, evening and night everywhere! Absolutely fabulous! :)
-
I have an acquaintance who became a vegan about three yeas ago. He is rather sanctimonious about his dietary condition. However, he did let slip one day that he "needs" to take dietary supplements.
Do vegan mothers breastfeed their babies? They are, after all, giving their offspring an animal product.
-
I have an acquaintance who became a vegan about three yeas ago. He is rather sanctimonious about his dietary condition. However, he did let slip one day that he "needs" to take dietary supplements.
Do vegan mothers breastfeed their babies? They are, after all, giving their offspring an animal product.
All vegans need to supplement with B12.
https://www.vegansociety.com/resources/nutrition-and-health/nutrients/vitamin-b12/what-every-vegan-should-know-about-vitamin-b12
I realise that your last line is tongue in cheek, but it's as annoying as your friend's sanctimoniousness.
-
Veganism can be detrimental to growing children as it deprives them of good nutrition.
-
Veganism can be detrimental to growing children as it deprives them of good nutrition.
So can a diet of McDonalds and kebabs. And?
-
I realise that your last line is tongue in cheek, but it's as annoying as your friend's sanctimoniousness.
No, it was not tongue-in-cheek. I would like to know where the boundary lies between commitment to a principle and the realities of physiology.
-
No, it was not tongue-in-cheek. I would like to know where the boundary lies between commitment to a principle and the realities of physiology.
It wasn't? You are being serious? Wow.
-
No, it was not tongue-in-cheek. I would like to know where the boundary lies between commitment to a principle and the realities of physiology.
Might the principle involve the idea of consent as well? You seem to be arguing a specific definition of an idea without establishing that it is anyone's actual full position.
-
Might the principle involve the idea of consent as well? You seem to be arguing a specific definition of an idea without establishing that it is anyone's actual full position.
I am not arguing anything. I was asking a question.
-
I am not arguing anything. I was asking a question.
Cow milk is intended to feed baby cows. Sheep milk is intended to feed baby sheep.
Human milk is designed to feed baby humans.
It's really not difficult. And as NS says, it is about consent. My body, my milk, my baby.
-
Cow milk is intended to feed baby cows. Sheep milk is intended to feed baby sheep.
Human milk is designed to feed baby humans.
It's really not difficult. And as NS says, it is about consent. My body, my milk, my baby.
I do not dispute any of that. At no time did I mention cows milk or sheep milk. Human milk is an animal product - I am asking what are the limits to veganism.
-
I do not dispute any of that. At no time did I mention cows milk or sheep milk. Human milk is an animal product - I am asking what are the limits to veganism.
How come you aren’t getting this?
Veganism isn’t about not wanting to use animal products, it is about not using the products of other animals that cannot consent. You didn’t mention the milk of other creatures - I did because it’s central to the argument. It’s obvious that humans produce milk to feed their young and feed their young by consent, including in milk sharing schemes.
My body, my milk, my baby.
-
It wasn't? You are being serious? Wow.
Double wow!
-
How come you aren’t getting this?
Who says I am not getting this? Indignation is not conducive to being rational.
Veganism isn’t about not wanting to use animal products, it is about not using the products of other animals that cannot consent. You didn’t mention the milk of other creatures - I did because it’s central to the argument. It’s obvious that humans produce milk to feed their young and feed their young by consent, including in milk sharing schemes.
My body, my milk, my baby.
That's better - although this is the first time that I have heard consent on the part of the animal as an argument in favour of veganism.
My acquaintance (our relationship is not sufficiently close for me to consider him to be a friend) once sat by a table in a pub and proceeded to continuously excoriate five of us while we were eating Sunday lunch. I do not recall that he mentioned consent.
-
Milk is needed for healthy bones, breastfeeding is for babies.
-
Who says I am not getting this? Indignation is not conducive to being rational.
That's better - although this is the first time that I have heard consent on the part of the animal as an argument in favour of veganism.
My acquaintance (our relationship is not sufficiently close for me to consider him to be a friend) once sat by a table in a pub and proceeded to continuously excoriate five of us while we were eating Sunday lunch. I do not recall that he mentioned consent.
I don't see Rhiannon's post as indignant, just a bit bemused. The not eating animal products idea isn't a principle that derives from nowhere. That you appear to have derived the whole arguments of vegans from a single conversation where you didn't explore the motivation in any detail seems s bizarre generalisation. And one that when both Rhiannon and I mentioned consent seems odd for you to react in this way.
-
Milk is needed for healthy bones, breastfeeding is for babies.
Calcium is needed for healtuy bones.
-
I think we should not make the mistake of treating all humanity as one in this connection. Different communities have evolved to digest different types of foods over the centuries. We all are programmed to digest and extract nutrients from different types of foods.
People who are used to eating meat for generations will probably become protein deficient if they suddenly stop eating meat. If strict vegetarians suddenly start eating meat their system might not be able to extract the same nutrients.
People who have never had cows milk for generations might not require it at all. Some communities might not be able to give up camel milk because their system is used to that.
Diet is probably genetic (and possibly also epigenetic) dependent.
-
Opt-out organ donation could be in place in England by the spring of 2020: https://tinyurl.com/ycogw4e5
-
People who are used to eating meat for generations will probably become protein deficient if they suddenly stop eating meat. If strict vegetarians suddenly start eating meat their system might not be able to extract the same nutrients.
Sriram bhaiya
Don't think anyone suggests that ANYBODY suddenly stop eating any food they've been eating for decades. Especially the most important.
We know we can get, say, proteins from other sources but breaking habits of a million lifetimes TAKES time.
We should 'replace' not just 'remove'. I think this is what you're saying here, nah?
Nick
-
Whilst I think it sensible to have an opt out policy, I still think it is a good idea to experiment on pigs to see if their organs are a viable and safe option.
-
I would hope that the sudden increase in available human organs would obviate that.
-
I would hope that the sudden increase in available human organs would obviate that.
I doubt that. It would be beneficial if each pig organ could be genetically designed to suit the needs of a specific patient.
-
I think we should not make the mistake of treating all humanity as one in this connection. Different communities have evolved to digest different types of foods over the centuries. We all are programmed to digest and extract nutrients from different types of foods.
People who are used to eating meat for generations will probably become protein deficient if they suddenly stop eating meat. If strict vegetarians suddenly start eating meat their system might not be able to extract the same nutrients.
People who have never had cows milk for generations might not require it at all. Some communities might not be able to give up camel milk because their system is used to that.
Diet is probably genetic (and possibly also epigenetic) dependent.
Interesting the cast system isn't 100% bad it has been a guide in the field of D N A research.
As I understand comparing the trends in the D N A of each cast against another has helped in all sorts of ways.
I have noticed during my brief stay here on this planet that something good in almost every case comes out of things that seem to be so terrible and unjust such as a cast system.
Regards ippy
-
Thought provoking piece of research.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/aug/16/opt-out-organ-register-unlikely-increase-donations-study
-
I cannot understand why anyone would wish to opt out of donating their organs, or a family would refuse permission. Once you are dead you are dead, and they are no further use to you. I would have no hesitation in allowing a family member's organs to be donated, if it was up to me to decide.
-
Thought provoking piece of research.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/aug/16/opt-out-organ-register-unlikely-increase-donations-study
Even if true (and other research says the opposite) it could be avoided by having a hard opt-out system as is already the case in places like Austria and Singapore.
-
Even if true (and other research says the opposite) it could be avoided by having a hard opt-out system as is already the case in places like Austria and Singapore.
I read that when Wales introduced the opt-out system a lot of people signed up because they felt that their autonomy was taken away. Personally I don't think families should get a choice if someone has opted in, or not opted out (depending on which piece of legislation we have at the time). The idea that we own the bodies of our kin is just insane.
-
Exactly. If you've made your wishes known about the use of your body after death, that decision stands and nobody has any right to override it.
... research from other countries where ‘hard’ opt-out systems are adopted (systems where consent to organ donation is strictly presumed, regardless of their families’ wishes), shows that there were increases in the organ donor rate of up to 25%.