Should Donors Get Priority?

[miniboes]

"Donors should have priority in receiving donated organs"

What do you guys think of this statement? I have a hard time finding reasons why this should not be the case.

[TheVeganAtheist]

I would imagine the choice of who receives organ donations should be based upon serious of need.

[Jebus]

Sounds like a great idea as it should motivate more to become donors.

[Volenta]

Sounds like a great idea as it should motivate more to become donors.

I'm really doubting whether this is the most effective way of motivation though...

I'm always hesitating on issues that are using a kind of 'blackmailing' to establish a goal. I don't think this is a social proposal. But it is of course a problem that people aren't willing to give away their organs after death, mostly out of irrational reasons (body purity, tradition, religious motives, ...).

[brimstoneSalad]

But it is of course a problem that people aren't willing to give away their organs after death, mostly out of irrational reasons (body purity, tradition, religious motives, ...).

I wouldn't really want my organs fed on animal products. Seems a little tricky to really decide who gets them.

I think it should be up to the donor, for the most part. Fewer people would hesitate to donate organs if they had a little say in who got them.

I don't want to give a liver to somebody who drink his/herself to liver failure.
I don't want to give a heart to somebody who ate his/herself into heart failure.
I don't want to give a lung to somebody who smoked his/herself into lung cancer.
etc.

I'd say let them decide based on lifestyle, but not religion or race. The fact that they themselves are donors could be relevant.

[Volenta]

I wouldn't really want my organs fed on animal products.

This really is an issue I'm also struggling with. Not only do these people have a higher risk of getting diseases, but it's also their actions that are immoral that you don't want to support.

Seems a little tricky to really decide who gets them.

I think it should be up to the donor, for the most part. Fewer people would hesitate to donate organs if they had a little say in who got them.

I don't want to give a liver to somebody who drink his/herself to liver failure.
I don't want to give a heart to somebody who ate his/herself into heart failure.
I don't want to give a lung to somebody who smoked his/herself into lung cancer.
etc.

I'd say let them decide based on lifestyle, but not religion or race.

I would agree with this. I think people are more generous if they would know it would go to the people that hadn't much saying in getting the disease/dysfunction. But it would be up to the donor to decide in that case, while the statement in the opening post seem to suggest it's a general rule which the donors themselves don't have any control over.

The fact that they themselves are donors could be relevant.

I'm not sure it would actually. While the examples you give above (drinking, smoking, ...) actually effect their health, people's generosity of giving away their own organs don't. I'm not sure it's a relevant criteria to discriminate on.

[brimstoneSalad]

I think it's important for the individuals to decide, because public policy has a lot of implications, and could get out of hand or go against the donors' wishes.

I'm not sure it would actually. While the examples you give above (drinking, smoking, ...) actually effect their health, people's generosity of giving away their own organs don't. I'm not sure it's a relevant criteria to discriminate on.

Some people actually give away all of their redundant organs to strangers. Although this might not be a good idea, if they ever had a problem (say with one of the organs that is no longer redundant), one could hope they could get a little help on that front since they already paid in, and it was their generosity that got them in trouble (rather than bad habits).