Take the analogue of "humane physician-assisted suicide." It's been legal in Canada for a few years now. When presented with the initial proposition, moral people agreed with the logic: if someone is in the final stages of an incurable disease and are in daily agonizing pain, why are we needlessly prolonging that suffering?
That has turned into, "If you're 25 years old, have depression and cannot afford your apartment, how about we kill you to save society some money?"
You will learn in my series that the many illnesses beside cancer have the same reason. It is simply unbelievable. Therefore, they fought the discoverer like Satan.
15 years ago when my brother was taken to a local hospital with a gunshot to his head I was first approached by a Catholic administrator who wanted to privately discuss donation of his organs. He was sure to die, but because his injury was self inflicted, he would die from the his own gun shot wound instead of natural causes (according to their Catholic rules ). So the only way to accept my brother as an organ donor was for him to die mercilessly on machines which are keeping him alive. So they are trying to convince my sister-in-law and I to leave him on the machines so they could take his organs. My sister-in-law made the decision to leave him on the machines, but not before I open my mouth and ask them how much they planned on selling my brothers organs for? I remember the administrator looking down. I asked her again and she lied and said “we don’t sell organs, and then my brothers would be donated. The hospital he was staying and receiving treatment was a Catholic hospital under the Los Angeles diocese, which doesn’t allow organ donations from suicide victims. So this is why they wanted him to stay on the machines. After four days of that nonsense I convinced my sister-in-law to pull the plug. It was very stressful what the administrators were doing to us by adding more weight to our already current grief. I remember one Doctor who was required to be present during our meeting with the administrators looking very disgusted. And it was disgusting, and their approach was cold-hearted and greedy causing me to question the organ donation business. Thank you for this Christopher. ✨💜🙏
Oh goodness. I am so sorry for all of you having to go through that!
My wife once brought up something I hadn’t thought of:
If you show as an organ donor, would hospital personnel maybe subconsciously try just a little less aggressively to resuscitate you after an accident or whatever?
Like, they are so used to people dying on their tables, so while they of course try hard, might they try just a little less hard knowing that your organs will go to a good cause?
Definitely something to think about! I can’t tell you how aggressive that administrator was to get her hands on my brothers organs. That whole corrupt industry needs to be turned upside down.
A dear friend of mine had a lung transplant about four years ago right before COVID-19. This is an entire Nother topic but his military and medic care insurance would not pay for the transplant if he did not follow their program protocol at any time during the treatment. His treatment continues today so the rules still applies today.
Right after his surgery — he was of course was required to stay in LA for two years near Cedar Sinai. But he was also required to hire a full time nurse at mostly his expense and house and feed her. He wasn’t allowed to drive during that time so his nurse was also his chauffeur.. If any one time he decided he wanted to go back home to Montana he would have been cut from the program and charge for all of his medical care. He still is required to go to LA twice a year for check ups. At his elderly age with his health issues taking those flights is difficult.
I find it amusing that we are squeamish about paying the person whose organ we get, but are not at all bothered by all the money going to the harvesting companies and their ghoulish sales people that pester bereaved families for organ donations. That has always struck me as wrong.
I haven't been on a plane in 41 years. Do they still have the popcorn vendors going up and down the isles? Free beer? Reruns of "Airplane"? Anyway...the organ debate or the market for organs debate. Very good topic.
Back in 1983, my young step-child (age 3 1/2) had a bone marrow transplant as she had leukemia. This was after several rounds of chemo. It seemed to almost work, as she lived another 20 months but in the end, that was the last thing they could try. I don't know of anyone who has had a bone marrow transplant since. The insurance mostly picked up the tab.
There is nothing inherently wrong with the buying and selling of organs as long as both parties agree to some sort of transaction...as in the donor agreeing to be party to this before he dies and that the organs are only available after the person has expired. A contract could possibly be used. Then again, the recipient could be wanting a transplant if the time for one has come but trying to make a pre-arranged contract could prove difficult. I imagine the lawyers would have a field day with breach of contracts. It could get quite confusing.
Like you say, it's as if just about any free market is subject to treachery and corruption. The main thing about organ donation is that organs are available on an "as is" basis and you just can't go to Walmart and order a used organ that exactly fits your needs. The other thing is that replacement organs are highly desirable by the rich because so many of them are extremely vain and arrogant as they want to live forever. They believe money and riches can buy them eternal life.
Poorer people (the other 90% of us) are just trying to survive and have a happy, prosperous life without too much difficulty. The organ market would probably become a bidding or auction market and that means many would be excluded due to lack of finances. Of course, government would want their "fair" share of any transaction which could be taxes, fees and a piece of the action.
However, the murder of anyone expressly for their organs speaks of a diabolical and extremely sinister gang of thugs who value money over life. That is becoming more common, it seems. As we near the end of the current "socialist" experiment, which is where the entire world is at right now, anything goes. Murder by government, corporations and societies has become rather accepted as I don't see many humans rising up with pitchforks as of yet. People still love their "hates" and their wars.
I don't believe in assisted suicide, and I think that has a lot of "religion" type questions involved. But as I and my wife age, the end of life could be quite a horrible experience as we might have to deal with the medical mafia.
I am deeply sorry to hear about your step daughter.
The previous owners of the home in which we now live went through something very similar. Obviously they did not want to remain in this house. We did not know them, but we try to honor the little girl's memory by remembering that none of us are guaranteed any particular length of time here…and that we should thus live life accordingly.
All the rest of the points you make are good. But one thing occurred to me—a free market in in organs does not in any way preclude people from donating on a charitable basis. So those without money would still be able to get them, as I feel confident that enough people would be repulsed by the $ market to create a charitable market too.
Ooh, and also…
If government gets out of the way, I suspect there would be more incentive for a company to test growing organs in a lab, from cloned tissue or whatever. That would change everything if successful.
If you follow my cancer series, you will learn and understand, that this organ industry is a part of a bigger crime called cancer. Cancer is not what physicians say. Absolutely not. All this organ trading is part of the crime and not necessary, if we would fight the cause of cancer and not the effects. Start here, it will be a journey over weeks into a fascinating suppressed world of knowledge:
I am willing to listen to almost anything new. But you must have an elevator pitch for what you say cancer "really" is. Hit us with that first, please.
The first part is the pitch. It is an infection which is 100 % curable. The microbes are protozoae and the cure is a century old drug which costs cents and not millions.
I will tell you a personal story that still is quite raw. My Uncle died in April. He was actually pronounced dead in the ambulance but they took him to the hospital anyways. Once there they learned he was a organ donor. Thats when everything changed. They said oh he has brain activity, they poured ice water in his ear daily to see if there was any response, they kept giving hope. They kept him on the plug just to keep his organs working til they were ready to take them. Then it was oh he was dead when he hit the ground. Supposedly he hit the ground so hard his brain squished to the other side. Then they paraded him the day they announced his real death aka the day they took his organs. They paraded him layed out on a stretcher through the hall with strangers looking on with a big ass banner across his chest saying organ donor. From that day I and my family vowed never b a organ donor and I see what it is a business. My uncle didnt deserve the way he was treated. They should have called him deceased from the start but no they kept offering hope when there truly was none. Just for his organs. You know who gets out of this happy the hospital they get paid.
A few years ago I did a bone marrow transfusion to be placed on a register so that if it ever came up that I was a match to someone I’d be more than happy to donate if needed.
It would never cross my mind to be paid for it, it never did when I made the donation . I’ve donated blood since I was 18 ( in Great Britain and New Zealand were its purely voluntary).
I love telling people about why I started….. I was 18 and my friend and I were walking past a blood donor hospital, my friend asked me if I wanted a free bottle of Guinness stout and I nodded yes, he told me you got a bottle to drink after donating a pint of blood ( they also offered tea or coffee and biscuits)
But Guinness it was. And since then I donated approx 3-4 pints a year . In my mind I’m thinking this is my full proof plan that if there is a heaven St Peter will look at the big ledger book as I stood at the Pearly Bates and think…. He’s been a bit of a twat here and there and done some stupid stuff but look at the people he has helped over the years, yep you’re in Davie Boy…….
They key word in all this is it’s a donation and as long as nobody is making coin out of it I’m happy enough to donate
In a conversation with another, I noted that even in a scenario in which controls were removed, such that people could exchange money if they wished, there would still also be a charitable market. The charitable market would likely be geared toward getting organs, marrow, etc. to people who could not afford to pay. And just like people do a lot of things for charitable reasons now, they would then as well. Cheers.
Libertarians have long advocated a free market in organs as long as no rights are violated in the process of acquiring and distributing them. That would almost certainly increase the available supply of organs and save many lives. However, I've read that it's illegal to sell or buy organs in the US. You can't even arrange in your will for the sale of your organs upon your death with the money raised to go to your favorite charity. The chief reason seems to be so that wealthy people can't have an "unfair" advantage in obtaining organs.
You may be right. Marxism is a form of collectivism. Since I'm no mind reader and I've never been a collectivist, I can only speculate about their motives. I'll
describe an alternative hypothesis below.
Affective polarization refers to positive attitudes toward members of one's own group and negative attitudes toward members of an opposing group. With apparent sincerity, collectivists and individualists attribute negative characteristics to each other. We should be cautious about attributing such characteristics to our ideological opponents.
Since the time of Plato, political philosophers have commonly held that the chief or only function of government is to uphold justice. That collectivists and individualists sincerely accept incompatible theories of justice can account for the animosity between the two groups. When two people disagree, they can't both be right. Since we humans are neither omniscient nor infallible, we often make factual or logical errors. Disagreement can result from honest mistakes. We can't win over collectivists by insulting them, but we might be able to convince them by rational means.
I believe that collectivism is based on an error: the fallacy of reification (aka hypostatization, or misplaced concreteness, which consists of treating an abstraction—in this case, a collective—as if it were a concrete individual. In reality, only individuals exist. Instead of being a single entity, a collective is just several discrete individuals. Collectivists seem to presuppose that society is analogous to a super organism whose members are comparable to the individual cells that constitute the organism's body. One definition of “justice” is “reward or penalty as deserved”. Rewards are things of (positive) value to a recipient and penalties are things of disvalue (aka negative value). To the extent they're consistent, collectivists regard positive and negative values as belonging to the group, whose individual members are of inherently equal moral worth and are hence equally deserving. The collectivist notion of equality differs from ours. Instead of equality of rights, they favor equity—equality of outcome. Consequently, justice requires that positive and negative values be distributed equally among individuals. That explains why “society's” wealth should be distributed equally and why collectivists are reluctant to punish criminals for what is believed to be “society's” fault.
The collectivist theory of justice explains the law prohibiting the sale of bodily organs even though it violates no rights according to the individualist theory. A wealthy person can buy what a poor person can't afford, but to a collectivist, the wealthy are no more deserving than the poor.
Consider a consequence of that law. Suppose Smith and Jones require a heart transplant to save their lives but there is only one compatible heart available. Smith is a successful businessman who employs several hundred people and serves several thousand happy customers. If he dies, his business will close, his employees will lose their jobs, and his customers will no longer be able to buy what he produces. Smith would spend his own money on the heart and the transplant procedure. Jones is a career criminal who has robbed many people and killed a few, but he is not currently serving time. If he dies, many fewer people will be robbed and a couple of innocent lives will be spared. Jones can't afford the heart or the transplant procedure. No one with sufficient wealth will voluntarily part with the money needed to save such a man, so taxpayers will have to foot the bill. Who should get the heart? I think almost all individualists would choose Smith. Some collectivists might agree. To others, it might be a matter of indifference. But I suspect that many would award the heart to Jones on the ground that Smith has already had a more pleasant life than he deserved because he had more than his fair share of wealth.
"We should be cautious about attributing such characteristics to our ideological opponents."
—I'm not so sure.
I generally agree with the rest of your comment. Collectivism reifies the group, sees the individual as a cell of a larger body, etc. So let's start with that.
That whole way of looking at things is factually wrong, for all the reasons you stated, and more. (The group is not a single entity—it is, rather, a collection of individuals. It cannot think, choose, act, experience, etc.)
That whole collectivist way of looking at things dehumanizes the individual human person. Without understanding that the human person is a rights-holding being (and that the group is NOT capable of holding rights), the human being becomes a sacrifice on the altar of the collective. This is why collectivists were able to slaughter 150 million souls in a single century. Just eggs in an omelet.
Now let's look at equalization of outcomes. First, equalization of outcomes is impossible, and requires massive force to attempt. Yet they're so obsessed with it that they are willing to deploy that massive force in service of that goal. And why? Three reasons spring up right away.
First, humans have an innate distaste for a high gini coefficient. If the gap gets too big, they fell like they cannot climb in the status hierarchy, so they freak out.
Second, one of the biggest status hierarchies to climb now is a hierarchy of "virtue"—of feeling good about oneself and signaling one's "goodness" to the tribe. And some people feel like redistribution makes them good people. Even though the opposite is true.
Third, I will grant that natural compassion is also involved. Misplaced and using a wicked vector for applying that compassion, but the compassion itself is at least somewhat real.
So, let's look at adherents to all of this.
1. They believe (and act on the belief of) something that is not true. (That the human person is, and can be treated, as a cell of the collective.) I do not need to respect the wisdom and intelligence of people who adhere to something that is false.
2. They believe something that is dehumanizing and has already directly led to the slaughter of a nine-digit number of humans. And they keep doubling down on that same false and dangerous idea. I have no reason to respect that either. Quite the contrary. It's wicked.
3. Obsession with inequality is, in some sense, primitive. Obsession with the gini coefficient and status hierarchies is coming from the limbic system. The belief that the economy is a zero sum game (if I get rich, you by definition must get poor) is caveman thinking. The last time economics worked that way was when there were only a given number of buffalo and berries in a given territory. I don't feel a great need to respect people whose understanding of reality is coming from a time when everyone's IQ was 50.
4. Maybe this is more of a personal thing, but I am not impressed by the external-locus-of-control survival strategy. Do what the tribe is doing. Follow the leader. Listen to the "experts." Don't rock the boat. IMO, that is what leads to Asch and Milgram. I am far more impressed by people with an internal locus of control.
5. Those who believe in forced redistribution don't even notice that it's not their money. That force is being applied to people. They preen in front of the mirror and tell the rest of us how wonderful and generous they are WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. They actually think that forced redistribution makes them GOOD.
I do not think they are all evil. But they adhere to a false and wicked idea that has brought forth much wickedness in the world. And I do think that that adherence must, on some level, be at least a partial result of some less-that-desirable personality traits.
So no, I cannot hold in the same regard collectivists and individualists. Individualists believe in something that is true and that does not slaughter 150 million people. I am fine saying that I have more respect for individualists.
And finally, just to put a bow on it—I think most people who would pick Jones over Smith would be doing it for virtue-signally reasons. Or bad ideological reasons. I get natural compassion. I feel natural compassion. And that would probably be in the mix too. But that also requires letting one's heart override the obvious conclusions of one's head. And that is something else I don't respect as much.
Egg donors can be “compensated.” How is this different? In fact, IVF is an elective procedure while bone marrow transfer can save a life.
42. Egg donors can be compensated $10,000–$12,000, based on stats on organ donation.
Egg donors are compensated for the suffering they endure during the egg donation process. The compensation can vary. Notably, it can even exceed $12,000 if the donor has unique qualities that are difficult to find.
Sperm and egg donors used to be paid in Canada, until that was made illegal; now there are very few donors and sperm and eggs have to be imported from other countries. I'm not sure what great evil has been eliminated by the ban.
Well, the imports only cost slightly more and mainly come from the U.S. The main concern is that the number of donors is decreasing and this means more children are unknowing half-siblings. It's also more difficult to vet the source of imported sperm and eggs. Strangely the argument for the ban was that paying donors was "exploitive".
I have pretty much the same assessment, if a mentally competent adult is willing to donate, it should be their decision. As you sated, there is going to be an illegal market for organ harvesting regardless, why shouldn't a person be able to choose to do it legally and possibly make some money if they are in a desperate situation. It sucks that it would come to that for some people, but the reality is that it does happen.
And if all there is is an illegal market, then the really desperate might even turn to it, feeling no other choice. And then, of course, once they're under, ALL their organs might get harvested. Because criminals.
Yes, organ "harvesting" [read: murderous theft] is apparently more lucrative than most of us can imagine; and that much money would have to be coming from the Very Wealthy. If there were competition from organs available at less obscene prices, the horrendous & illegal harvesters would not be happy. And as all here seem to know, they're government-sponsored and -protected.
I don't think it has anything whatsoever to do with moral questions, though they're sure to be trotted out as distraction.
[Aside:] Gads, how long has this been going on. When I got my first driver's license, ca 1968 (in Calif), there was a place on the back to sign if you wished to donate your organs in case if death. My mom, despite her keen intelligence, was a typical True Believer in whatever "they" say, so of course I signed.
I didn't get till TODAY that they'd have been sold. And another detail becomes clear; surviving family members are informed that the deceased's organs went to a patient who had xxx disease and has been wonderfully helped/saved by the donation.
This instilling of pride into subjects aka victims of the medical cartel seems widespread. Of course people's giddiness at getting their next jab has been in all our faces.
It reminds me of when I first noticed the trend -- three different recipients of pacemakers pulled their shirt collars down to show me - they create this godawful lumpy chest! - yet they're quite proud. When the third person who did that was someone I'd never even MET before, I knew it was strategy. Ir's a minor point but I guess I'm just feeling verbose this morning.
That's tough, but is this the only option is all I could think of when watching the video? I don't know enough about it but there seems to be so many other ways beyond what the "establishment" deems possible or makes available and this video only presents that one solution. If that is the only solution, then there needs to be a compelling reason to step into this as a donor and money could be that...the issue then is open communication instead of everything so hush-hush behind regulations that often are not really about the donor, nor receipient, but protection and profit for the hospital, the system...which on its own does much worse. I removed myself from all blood and organ donation once I went down those rabbit holes, which are anything but the what they claim to be. Apparently there are other ways around blood transfusion as well, but instead of that information (like cancer, etc.) being made available, they sell another story to push pharma and/or procedures and then use these non-profits "that never seem to find a cure because they are part of the problem"....as a front. I don't have children, but I'd definitely do whatever it tooks to help them if I did....natural law says no victim, no crime. I can't help but wonder if the real reason they made this "illegal" between two consenting parties is because the hospital makes more if there is a death. Obviously there are other implications on the morality of it, but without the full scope of knowledge and possibilities that goes well beyond what the medical complex promotes, where is the line drawn? Witholding data, harvesting without consent or horrors on the black market in general, which seems to always exist no matter what and I certainly don't condone that. All that aside, there is so much wrong with the diagnosis and doom/gloom of the labels doctor's use without understanding the power the mind has over a situation, that alone is a whole other topic, yet one that is important because time-and-time again people have shown the ability to heal in ways the world of science says is impossible but when you tell them this is it or else, it's like a death blow to the spirit.
Very, very tricky.
Take the analogue of "humane physician-assisted suicide." It's been legal in Canada for a few years now. When presented with the initial proposition, moral people agreed with the logic: if someone is in the final stages of an incurable disease and are in daily agonizing pain, why are we needlessly prolonging that suffering?
That has turned into, "If you're 25 years old, have depression and cannot afford your apartment, how about we kill you to save society some money?"
"Society" has become a menace.
“Become?”
LOL. Yep.
I chose that word intentionally, with Paine's quote about society in mind. Society can be very nice. We need community. We need others.
But it is constantly pathologized into something it should not be. And yeah, maybe it always has been.
The Universal Antidote, Chlorine Dioxide?
Does it cure covid?
I was just wondering if that was what he was referring to regarding what we are told is cancer.
Ahhhhhh, gotcha.
You will learn in my series that the many illnesses beside cancer have the same reason. It is simply unbelievable. Therefore, they fought the discoverer like Satan.
Buddy, I am not going to "learn in your series" unless you give me the 15-second elevator pitch. What is the "same reason" for these "many illnesses?"
Read above.
15 years ago when my brother was taken to a local hospital with a gunshot to his head I was first approached by a Catholic administrator who wanted to privately discuss donation of his organs. He was sure to die, but because his injury was self inflicted, he would die from the his own gun shot wound instead of natural causes (according to their Catholic rules ). So the only way to accept my brother as an organ donor was for him to die mercilessly on machines which are keeping him alive. So they are trying to convince my sister-in-law and I to leave him on the machines so they could take his organs. My sister-in-law made the decision to leave him on the machines, but not before I open my mouth and ask them how much they planned on selling my brothers organs for? I remember the administrator looking down. I asked her again and she lied and said “we don’t sell organs, and then my brothers would be donated. The hospital he was staying and receiving treatment was a Catholic hospital under the Los Angeles diocese, which doesn’t allow organ donations from suicide victims. So this is why they wanted him to stay on the machines. After four days of that nonsense I convinced my sister-in-law to pull the plug. It was very stressful what the administrators were doing to us by adding more weight to our already current grief. I remember one Doctor who was required to be present during our meeting with the administrators looking very disgusted. And it was disgusting, and their approach was cold-hearted and greedy causing me to question the organ donation business. Thank you for this Christopher. ✨💜🙏
Oh goodness. I am so sorry for all of you having to go through that!
My wife once brought up something I hadn’t thought of:
If you show as an organ donor, would hospital personnel maybe subconsciously try just a little less aggressively to resuscitate you after an accident or whatever?
Like, they are so used to people dying on their tables, so while they of course try hard, might they try just a little less hard knowing that your organs will go to a good cause?
Definitely something to think about! I can’t tell you how aggressive that administrator was to get her hands on my brothers organs. That whole corrupt industry needs to be turned upside down.
A dear friend of mine had a lung transplant about four years ago right before COVID-19. This is an entire Nother topic but his military and medic care insurance would not pay for the transplant if he did not follow their program protocol at any time during the treatment. His treatment continues today so the rules still applies today.
Right after his surgery — he was of course was required to stay in LA for two years near Cedar Sinai. But he was also required to hire a full time nurse at mostly his expense and house and feed her. He wasn’t allowed to drive during that time so his nurse was also his chauffeur.. If any one time he decided he wanted to go back home to Montana he would have been cut from the program and charge for all of his medical care. He still is required to go to LA twice a year for check ups. At his elderly age with his health issues taking those flights is difficult.
ALL of that is really messed up.
My vote for most messed up: "Catholic hospital under the Los Angeles diocese, which doesn’t allow organ donations from suicide victims."
Why? Are the organs evil? Other people die because one person chose to die?
Yes, totally messed up, and needs overhauling! ✨💜🤗
I find it amusing that we are squeamish about paying the person whose organ we get, but are not at all bothered by all the money going to the harvesting companies and their ghoulish sales people that pester bereaved families for organ donations. That has always struck me as wrong.
Strange priorities.
I haven't been on a plane in 41 years. Do they still have the popcorn vendors going up and down the isles? Free beer? Reruns of "Airplane"? Anyway...the organ debate or the market for organs debate. Very good topic.
Back in 1983, my young step-child (age 3 1/2) had a bone marrow transplant as she had leukemia. This was after several rounds of chemo. It seemed to almost work, as she lived another 20 months but in the end, that was the last thing they could try. I don't know of anyone who has had a bone marrow transplant since. The insurance mostly picked up the tab.
There is nothing inherently wrong with the buying and selling of organs as long as both parties agree to some sort of transaction...as in the donor agreeing to be party to this before he dies and that the organs are only available after the person has expired. A contract could possibly be used. Then again, the recipient could be wanting a transplant if the time for one has come but trying to make a pre-arranged contract could prove difficult. I imagine the lawyers would have a field day with breach of contracts. It could get quite confusing.
Like you say, it's as if just about any free market is subject to treachery and corruption. The main thing about organ donation is that organs are available on an "as is" basis and you just can't go to Walmart and order a used organ that exactly fits your needs. The other thing is that replacement organs are highly desirable by the rich because so many of them are extremely vain and arrogant as they want to live forever. They believe money and riches can buy them eternal life.
Poorer people (the other 90% of us) are just trying to survive and have a happy, prosperous life without too much difficulty. The organ market would probably become a bidding or auction market and that means many would be excluded due to lack of finances. Of course, government would want their "fair" share of any transaction which could be taxes, fees and a piece of the action.
However, the murder of anyone expressly for their organs speaks of a diabolical and extremely sinister gang of thugs who value money over life. That is becoming more common, it seems. As we near the end of the current "socialist" experiment, which is where the entire world is at right now, anything goes. Murder by government, corporations and societies has become rather accepted as I don't see many humans rising up with pitchforks as of yet. People still love their "hates" and their wars.
I don't believe in assisted suicide, and I think that has a lot of "religion" type questions involved. But as I and my wife age, the end of life could be quite a horrible experience as we might have to deal with the medical mafia.
I am deeply sorry to hear about your step daughter.
The previous owners of the home in which we now live went through something very similar. Obviously they did not want to remain in this house. We did not know them, but we try to honor the little girl's memory by remembering that none of us are guaranteed any particular length of time here…and that we should thus live life accordingly.
"I haven't been on a plane in 41 years. Do they still have the popcorn vendors going up and down the isles? Free beer? Reruns of "Airplane"?"
—They give you a bag of peanuts and then punch you in the teeth. And that's in first class.
All the rest of the points you make are good. But one thing occurred to me—a free market in in organs does not in any way preclude people from donating on a charitable basis. So those without money would still be able to get them, as I feel confident that enough people would be repulsed by the $ market to create a charitable market too.
Ooh, and also…
If government gets out of the way, I suspect there would be more incentive for a company to test growing organs in a lab, from cloned tissue or whatever. That would change everything if successful.
If you follow my cancer series, you will learn and understand, that this organ industry is a part of a bigger crime called cancer. Cancer is not what physicians say. Absolutely not. All this organ trading is part of the crime and not necessary, if we would fight the cause of cancer and not the effects. Start here, it will be a journey over weeks into a fascinating suppressed world of knowledge:
https://www.live-without-limits.net/p/the-cancer-lie-cancer-is-not-what-doctors-say?r=8mqdm&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I am willing to listen to almost anything new. But you must have an elevator pitch for what you say cancer "really" is. Hit us with that first, please.
The first part is the pitch. It is an infection which is 100 % curable. The microbes are protozoae and the cure is a century old drug which costs cents and not millions.
This tells me nothing. What is "the pitch?"
I will tell you a personal story that still is quite raw. My Uncle died in April. He was actually pronounced dead in the ambulance but they took him to the hospital anyways. Once there they learned he was a organ donor. Thats when everything changed. They said oh he has brain activity, they poured ice water in his ear daily to see if there was any response, they kept giving hope. They kept him on the plug just to keep his organs working til they were ready to take them. Then it was oh he was dead when he hit the ground. Supposedly he hit the ground so hard his brain squished to the other side. Then they paraded him the day they announced his real death aka the day they took his organs. They paraded him layed out on a stretcher through the hall with strangers looking on with a big ass banner across his chest saying organ donor. From that day I and my family vowed never b a organ donor and I see what it is a business. My uncle didnt deserve the way he was treated. They should have called him deceased from the start but no they kept offering hope when there truly was none. Just for his organs. You know who gets out of this happy the hospital they get paid.
Ugh. I am so sorry for you guys and for your uncle. That is terrible.
And yeah, that is a really good point. SOMEONE is getting paid now.
Gross.
A few years ago I did a bone marrow transfusion to be placed on a register so that if it ever came up that I was a match to someone I’d be more than happy to donate if needed.
It would never cross my mind to be paid for it, it never did when I made the donation . I’ve donated blood since I was 18 ( in Great Britain and New Zealand were its purely voluntary).
I love telling people about why I started….. I was 18 and my friend and I were walking past a blood donor hospital, my friend asked me if I wanted a free bottle of Guinness stout and I nodded yes, he told me you got a bottle to drink after donating a pint of blood ( they also offered tea or coffee and biscuits)
But Guinness it was. And since then I donated approx 3-4 pints a year . In my mind I’m thinking this is my full proof plan that if there is a heaven St Peter will look at the big ledger book as I stood at the Pearly Bates and think…. He’s been a bit of a twat here and there and done some stupid stuff but look at the people he has helped over the years, yep you’re in Davie Boy…….
They key word in all this is it’s a donation and as long as nobody is making coin out of it I’m happy enough to donate
In a conversation with another, I noted that even in a scenario in which controls were removed, such that people could exchange money if they wished, there would still also be a charitable market. The charitable market would likely be geared toward getting organs, marrow, etc. to people who could not afford to pay. And just like people do a lot of things for charitable reasons now, they would then as well. Cheers.
Libertarians have long advocated a free market in organs as long as no rights are violated in the process of acquiring and distributing them. That would almost certainly increase the available supply of organs and save many lives. However, I've read that it's illegal to sell or buy organs in the US. You can't even arrange in your will for the sale of your organs upon your death with the money raised to go to your favorite charity. The chief reason seems to be so that wealthy people can't have an "unfair" advantage in obtaining organs.
Pathetic Marxian jealously. Humans are weak, and leftism attracts the worst of us.
You may be right. Marxism is a form of collectivism. Since I'm no mind reader and I've never been a collectivist, I can only speculate about their motives. I'll
describe an alternative hypothesis below.
Affective polarization refers to positive attitudes toward members of one's own group and negative attitudes toward members of an opposing group. With apparent sincerity, collectivists and individualists attribute negative characteristics to each other. We should be cautious about attributing such characteristics to our ideological opponents.
Since the time of Plato, political philosophers have commonly held that the chief or only function of government is to uphold justice. That collectivists and individualists sincerely accept incompatible theories of justice can account for the animosity between the two groups. When two people disagree, they can't both be right. Since we humans are neither omniscient nor infallible, we often make factual or logical errors. Disagreement can result from honest mistakes. We can't win over collectivists by insulting them, but we might be able to convince them by rational means.
I believe that collectivism is based on an error: the fallacy of reification (aka hypostatization, or misplaced concreteness, which consists of treating an abstraction—in this case, a collective—as if it were a concrete individual. In reality, only individuals exist. Instead of being a single entity, a collective is just several discrete individuals. Collectivists seem to presuppose that society is analogous to a super organism whose members are comparable to the individual cells that constitute the organism's body. One definition of “justice” is “reward or penalty as deserved”. Rewards are things of (positive) value to a recipient and penalties are things of disvalue (aka negative value). To the extent they're consistent, collectivists regard positive and negative values as belonging to the group, whose individual members are of inherently equal moral worth and are hence equally deserving. The collectivist notion of equality differs from ours. Instead of equality of rights, they favor equity—equality of outcome. Consequently, justice requires that positive and negative values be distributed equally among individuals. That explains why “society's” wealth should be distributed equally and why collectivists are reluctant to punish criminals for what is believed to be “society's” fault.
The collectivist theory of justice explains the law prohibiting the sale of bodily organs even though it violates no rights according to the individualist theory. A wealthy person can buy what a poor person can't afford, but to a collectivist, the wealthy are no more deserving than the poor.
Consider a consequence of that law. Suppose Smith and Jones require a heart transplant to save their lives but there is only one compatible heart available. Smith is a successful businessman who employs several hundred people and serves several thousand happy customers. If he dies, his business will close, his employees will lose their jobs, and his customers will no longer be able to buy what he produces. Smith would spend his own money on the heart and the transplant procedure. Jones is a career criminal who has robbed many people and killed a few, but he is not currently serving time. If he dies, many fewer people will be robbed and a couple of innocent lives will be spared. Jones can't afford the heart or the transplant procedure. No one with sufficient wealth will voluntarily part with the money needed to save such a man, so taxpayers will have to foot the bill. Who should get the heart? I think almost all individualists would choose Smith. Some collectivists might agree. To others, it might be a matter of indifference. But I suspect that many would award the heart to Jones on the ground that Smith has already had a more pleasant life than he deserved because he had more than his fair share of wealth.
"We should be cautious about attributing such characteristics to our ideological opponents."
—I'm not so sure.
I generally agree with the rest of your comment. Collectivism reifies the group, sees the individual as a cell of a larger body, etc. So let's start with that.
That whole way of looking at things is factually wrong, for all the reasons you stated, and more. (The group is not a single entity—it is, rather, a collection of individuals. It cannot think, choose, act, experience, etc.)
That whole collectivist way of looking at things dehumanizes the individual human person. Without understanding that the human person is a rights-holding being (and that the group is NOT capable of holding rights), the human being becomes a sacrifice on the altar of the collective. This is why collectivists were able to slaughter 150 million souls in a single century. Just eggs in an omelet.
Now let's look at equalization of outcomes. First, equalization of outcomes is impossible, and requires massive force to attempt. Yet they're so obsessed with it that they are willing to deploy that massive force in service of that goal. And why? Three reasons spring up right away.
First, humans have an innate distaste for a high gini coefficient. If the gap gets too big, they fell like they cannot climb in the status hierarchy, so they freak out.
Second, one of the biggest status hierarchies to climb now is a hierarchy of "virtue"—of feeling good about oneself and signaling one's "goodness" to the tribe. And some people feel like redistribution makes them good people. Even though the opposite is true.
Third, I will grant that natural compassion is also involved. Misplaced and using a wicked vector for applying that compassion, but the compassion itself is at least somewhat real.
So, let's look at adherents to all of this.
1. They believe (and act on the belief of) something that is not true. (That the human person is, and can be treated, as a cell of the collective.) I do not need to respect the wisdom and intelligence of people who adhere to something that is false.
2. They believe something that is dehumanizing and has already directly led to the slaughter of a nine-digit number of humans. And they keep doubling down on that same false and dangerous idea. I have no reason to respect that either. Quite the contrary. It's wicked.
3. Obsession with inequality is, in some sense, primitive. Obsession with the gini coefficient and status hierarchies is coming from the limbic system. The belief that the economy is a zero sum game (if I get rich, you by definition must get poor) is caveman thinking. The last time economics worked that way was when there were only a given number of buffalo and berries in a given territory. I don't feel a great need to respect people whose understanding of reality is coming from a time when everyone's IQ was 50.
4. Maybe this is more of a personal thing, but I am not impressed by the external-locus-of-control survival strategy. Do what the tribe is doing. Follow the leader. Listen to the "experts." Don't rock the boat. IMO, that is what leads to Asch and Milgram. I am far more impressed by people with an internal locus of control.
5. Those who believe in forced redistribution don't even notice that it's not their money. That force is being applied to people. They preen in front of the mirror and tell the rest of us how wonderful and generous they are WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. They actually think that forced redistribution makes them GOOD.
I do not think they are all evil. But they adhere to a false and wicked idea that has brought forth much wickedness in the world. And I do think that that adherence must, on some level, be at least a partial result of some less-that-desirable personality traits.
So no, I cannot hold in the same regard collectivists and individualists. Individualists believe in something that is true and that does not slaughter 150 million people. I am fine saying that I have more respect for individualists.
And finally, just to put a bow on it—I think most people who would pick Jones over Smith would be doing it for virtue-signally reasons. Or bad ideological reasons. I get natural compassion. I feel natural compassion. And that would probably be in the mix too. But that also requires letting one's heart override the obvious conclusions of one's head. And that is something else I don't respect as much.
Egg donors can be “compensated.” How is this different? In fact, IVF is an elective procedure while bone marrow transfer can save a life.
42. Egg donors can be compensated $10,000–$12,000, based on stats on organ donation.
Egg donors are compensated for the suffering they endure during the egg donation process. The compensation can vary. Notably, it can even exceed $12,000 if the donor has unique qualities that are difficult to find.
Voluntary transactions between consenting adults. No one has any business regulating any such transaction.
Sperm and egg donors used to be paid in Canada, until that was made illegal; now there are very few donors and sperm and eggs have to be imported from other countries. I'm not sure what great evil has been eliminated by the ban.
Part of the effort to depopulate the West?
Well, the imports only cost slightly more and mainly come from the U.S. The main concern is that the number of donors is decreasing and this means more children are unknowing half-siblings. It's also more difficult to vet the source of imported sperm and eggs. Strangely the argument for the ban was that paying donors was "exploitive".
"Strangely the argument for the ban was that paying donors was "exploitive"."
—Lame. And very suspect.
Hey, I am in my 50s, but I am unvaxxed. I'd happily be exploited if anyone wants to pay me 🤣
I have pretty much the same assessment, if a mentally competent adult is willing to donate, it should be their decision. As you sated, there is going to be an illegal market for organ harvesting regardless, why shouldn't a person be able to choose to do it legally and possibly make some money if they are in a desperate situation. It sucks that it would come to that for some people, but the reality is that it does happen.
And if all there is is an illegal market, then the really desperate might even turn to it, feeling no other choice. And then, of course, once they're under, ALL their organs might get harvested. Because criminals.
Yes, organ "harvesting" [read: murderous theft] is apparently more lucrative than most of us can imagine; and that much money would have to be coming from the Very Wealthy. If there were competition from organs available at less obscene prices, the horrendous & illegal harvesters would not be happy. And as all here seem to know, they're government-sponsored and -protected.
I don't think it has anything whatsoever to do with moral questions, though they're sure to be trotted out as distraction.
[Aside:] Gads, how long has this been going on. When I got my first driver's license, ca 1968 (in Calif), there was a place on the back to sign if you wished to donate your organs in case if death. My mom, despite her keen intelligence, was a typical True Believer in whatever "they" say, so of course I signed.
I didn't get till TODAY that they'd have been sold. And another detail becomes clear; surviving family members are informed that the deceased's organs went to a patient who had xxx disease and has been wonderfully helped/saved by the donation.
This instilling of pride into subjects aka victims of the medical cartel seems widespread. Of course people's giddiness at getting their next jab has been in all our faces.
It reminds me of when I first noticed the trend -- three different recipients of pacemakers pulled their shirt collars down to show me - they create this godawful lumpy chest! - yet they're quite proud. When the third person who did that was someone I'd never even MET before, I knew it was strategy. Ir's a minor point but I guess I'm just feeling verbose this morning.
The medical industry have totally beclowned themselves.
"My mom, despite her keen intelligence, was a typical True Believer in whatever "they" say, so of course I signed.
I didn't get till TODAY that they'd have been sold."
—But they claim that they are not sold, but doled out based on a set of medical criteria.
That's tough, but is this the only option is all I could think of when watching the video? I don't know enough about it but there seems to be so many other ways beyond what the "establishment" deems possible or makes available and this video only presents that one solution. If that is the only solution, then there needs to be a compelling reason to step into this as a donor and money could be that...the issue then is open communication instead of everything so hush-hush behind regulations that often are not really about the donor, nor receipient, but protection and profit for the hospital, the system...which on its own does much worse. I removed myself from all blood and organ donation once I went down those rabbit holes, which are anything but the what they claim to be. Apparently there are other ways around blood transfusion as well, but instead of that information (like cancer, etc.) being made available, they sell another story to push pharma and/or procedures and then use these non-profits "that never seem to find a cure because they are part of the problem"....as a front. I don't have children, but I'd definitely do whatever it tooks to help them if I did....natural law says no victim, no crime. I can't help but wonder if the real reason they made this "illegal" between two consenting parties is because the hospital makes more if there is a death. Obviously there are other implications on the morality of it, but without the full scope of knowledge and possibilities that goes well beyond what the medical complex promotes, where is the line drawn? Witholding data, harvesting without consent or horrors on the black market in general, which seems to always exist no matter what and I certainly don't condone that. All that aside, there is so much wrong with the diagnosis and doom/gloom of the labels doctor's use without understanding the power the mind has over a situation, that alone is a whole other topic, yet one that is important because time-and-time again people have shown the ability to heal in ways the world of science says is impossible but when you tell them this is it or else, it's like a death blow to the spirit.
It's a grim picture you paint!
One question—do hospitals make more from deaths?
That's the question for sure, I've heard that is so, but I have no proof to back it up.
Same argument goes for drugs and prostitution.
Why is it illegal to smoke plants?
Why is it illegal to touch people for money?
(except if you film it)
The answer, as always, is religion and human stupidity.
If you want to abolish stupid laws, you need to abolish stupid people.
Better yet, abolish the thing that passes the laws in the first place.