I was reading an interesting article yesterday while at my chiropractors. As you are probably aware, a very small percentage of the nation are registered organ donors. The government is looking at an "opt out" scheme rather than the current "opt in" one. But that is years away, even in the unlikely event it goes ahead.
This article, however, suggested a way to greatly increase the amount of donors in this country would be to allow the dead person (while he or she was alive!) stipulate who can or cannot have his/her organs upon his/her death.
In other words, the dead person could say no Man Utd fans must get his organs, or no white people, or no homosexuals, or no one over 50 etc etc.
So what do you think? It disgusts me that someone could stipulate that only a white person could get their organs but is this a case "for the greater good?" It would get more people registered as donors and save more lives.
Is saving lives more important than prejudice in this case?
This article, however, suggested a way to greatly increase the amount of donors in this country would be to allow the dead person (while he or she was alive!) stipulate who can or cannot have his/her organs upon his/her death.
In other words, the dead person could say no Man Utd fans must get his organs, or no white people, or no homosexuals, or no one over 50 etc etc.
So what do you think? It disgusts me that someone could stipulate that only a white person could get their organs but is this a case "for the greater good?" It would get more people registered as donors and save more lives.
Is saving lives more important than prejudice in this case?