Quote:
Originally posted by raeanna74
I don't think it would work too well and I'm sure it would bring up so many more issues regarding race and prejudice. Though in medicine race is necessary.
Personally I would choose to give to only NON-Criminals.
|
Your point is valid, but it's not racism to leave your effects to your children in your will. Is it racism to give your stuff to someone who is already established and doesn't need it and not some inner-city minority children? Obviously most don't think so since you can leave your effects to anyone you wish regardless of need.
And to further play devil's advocate, why can't a person be racist with their organs? Just because racism is wrong doesn't mean a person doesn't have the right to believe in it, and to direct their property away from those they erroneously discriminate against. I mean property shouldn't be conditional, especially posthumous body parts, hence the option to not be a donor. I say take it a step further and have designations of who gets your organs. It may be a little more paperwork, but it would reintroduce natural selection into our lives in a new way.
Additional question: you have the option to save two lives. A 9 year old girl, and a 65 year old woman. You know neither one and will not meet them before hand. Who would you pick to continue life? I believe most would save the little girl, given that she's barely tasted life and most likely the 65 yo has lived a full life or at least had 65 years to do so. A selective process might exclude some groups, such as the elderly, minorities, or criminals but that would be the decision of society's members so you'd have your peers to blame. You can't force ppl to not discriminate, only educate. I think it would be very interesting to have a check off sheet and see the anonymous stats of that.