We’re now at the one-year anniversary of when the governor here in Maskachusetts declared a state of emergency and began to tell healthy young people that they needed to give up what turned out to be at least a year of their lives (education, social activity, building work experience, maintaining fitness via sports/gym, etc.) in hopes of extending the lives of folks with a median age of 82.
The logic of lockdown is that young people are required by law to sacrifice if there is an old person whose life could possibly be extended via that sacrifice.
What if we applied the same logic to organ harvesting? No young person actually needs two kidneys nor a full-size liver. Removing a kidney or part of a liver from a young person wouldn’t cost the young person a full year of life expectancy and it could save the life of an older person.
We were comfortable with taking what has turned out to be a year of life away from the young. Why aren’t we comfortable imposing on them a slight inconvenience (only 4 to 6 days in the hospital) in order to get organs that they don’t need and that could help save lives among the old/sick?
Related (Department of Old v. Young):
- “Hundreds of rowdy revelers throw out-of-control street party near University of Colorado, Boulder, campus” (ABC): … up to 800 people, most appearing to be college-aged, prompting violent clashes with SWAT police who deployed at least one armored vehicle to disperse the crowd, according to authorities. … Boulder County District Attorney Michael Dougherty released a statement on Sunday, saying his office is working with police detectives to identify suspects who “should be held fully responsible for their outrageous actions.” “Our community was put at risk last night by the individuals involved in the incident in the Hill area. Their callous disregard for our community’s safety and well-being is shameful,” Dougherty’s statement said. “There is no excuse for this conduct, especially while the people of this community endure the pandemic.”
- a tale of a kidney transplant flight (2010); photo above is from that trip
> No young person actually needs two kidneys nor a full-size liver. Removing a kidney or part of a liver from a young person wouldn’t cost the young person a full year of life expectancy
I don’t know that this is a true statement. While it may be true that no one needs two kidneys nor a full-size liver to survive, it doesn’t necessarily follow that removal of said organs has no cost in life expectancy.
ScarletNumber: You’re denying science! The above cited page, https://www.kidney.org/transplantation/livingdonors/what-expect-after-donation , says “Living donation does not change life expectancy, and does not appear to increase the risk of kidney failure.”
Also from that page: “The National Kidney Foundation (NKF) is the largest, most comprehensive and longstanding organization dedicated to the awareness, prevention and treatment of kidney disease.”
In other words, there is a scientific consensus that kidney donation does not affect life expectancy. You wouldn’t contradict a scientific consensus, would you?
“Living donation does not change life expectancy, and does not appear to increase the risk of kidney failure.” – was this research sponsored by Jim Beam and Smirnoff?
Wasn’t this already covered a while back? 😉 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp-pU8TFsg0
For this program to be effective, you have to start at early age. Start with educational programs on PBS, then continue the programs to kindergartners all the way to high school. After all, our students receive some form of sex education at school at least once starting at grades 6.
Stop making so much sense, Phil:)
The reality is, leftists are totally blind to the true nature of their collectivist faith as a death cult – from metaphorical death of ego and individuality is service to the Collective God to glorification of “sacrifice” to suppression of those who dare to show indvividuality or aptitude above the crowd, to real-life reeducation camps and killing fields.