Who has more right to live...

[PinkMoon]

Im currently writing my German Oral, part of it is health and one of the questions ive written is
'dont we all have the right of life?'
i think it raises an important moral question, and my dad was talking about it the other day and said thats why he doesn't carry a donor card, you may think its selfish, or maybe just human but..:
imagine two people in hospital..an old person who has maximum ten more years to live..this person has had an amazing life, done loads but is now living on a state pension and living on their own..
the other is a young adult, accepted into a presitgious university, has much to live for with a loving family..
now they've both had an accident..
the old person may live but it is touch and go, there is nothing to do to help the person..it is unlikely the person will survive but there is a chance...
the young adult will live only if they can have an organ from teh old person, there are no other compatiable organs available. but if the young person takes this organ the old person is more likely to die..

who deserves the organ? the old person (whose organ it is anyway) or the young person?

[Spyder]

they shouldnt remove the organ from its current owner in that sitution

but if there was an organ that was from neither of the two people then the young person should get it,

because the youngun' has soo much more to happen and to do with life

[kier]

surely the question should be "who has the right to decide who should live?"

[showmet]

Well if you're suggesting killing the oldie in order to save the young lad, then the problem would be with committing a murder in order to save a life - who are we to decide who has more right to live?

Organ donor cards only allow them to take organs from dead people - at least I bloody well hope so! I certainly hope it's not like that bit in Monty Python's Meaning of Life where they hack open a perfectly healthy man because he has a donor card. In the situation you describe, I'm sure the priority for an organ transplant would go to the most likely to survive, younger person. There'd never be any question of killing someone to help another, though - why would there be?

Forgive me if I misunderstood the question...:)

[PinkMoon]

I'm afraid i didn't pose the question very well but i'm writing at the moment very tired and slightly sunburnt...the example i gave wasn't very good so may be it would be better to take the example,

there is an organ from a dead person, who deserves it more?

[torz]

ok, if there was a dead person who heald a donor card & an organ was a match to both the old person & the young person then i say give it to the young person. i'm not saying that because i favour the young person but the young person has more to contribute to the country with regards to tax & NI, voting, and also they will get more out of the organ, for eg, if they had children then they would be a better parent.

[DoktorAtomik]

but the young person has more to contribute to the country with regards to tax & NI, voting

Wow. That's how you measure a person's worth?!?

[akhc]

simple.. assuming all things are equal aside from age then whoever was on the donor list first.. which btw is the way it is done under the NHS.

[torz]

no but obvioulsley if it was for the govenment to decide then thats how they'd look at it.

[hess]

Place urself in that situation, would you be willing to let go for the other person? <Shrugs> i dont know to be honest, thats why these decisions aren't made by me :) but if it was me, i wreckon i'd b happy to leave this little place for another <shrugs> maybe thats just me thinking without being in the situation.