I just got another comment from the organ donor guy, again hawking the site and phone number. The comment has been deleted, and I have blocked him, but here is his comment, again without the naughty bits.
With all due respect, you folks are all defending the right of people to get organs without being willing to donate their own organs. This might seem defensible if there wasn't a large organ shortage. Please explain why it makes sense to give organs to people who won't donate their own.
You are also attacking the right of organ donors to decide who gets their organs, while defending the right of people to decide that NOBODY will get their organs. I just don't get it. Would somebody please explain how this makes sense?
Organs for Organ Donors -- the concept makes sense. Give organs first to organ donors, and you'll get more organ donors. You'll save more lives. Which of your objections is so important that it justifies saving fewer lives and letting more people die?
I'm really not sure why he keeps showing up on this little blog. I really could go on and on about all the reasons I find this objectionable: lack of compassion, exclusionism, etc. If I had to explain why it makes sense to give organs to those who won't donate their own, I would first reiterate that it is not our decision to make, and secondly, I would echo Reader Mary's comment that there are those who do not donate for medical, personal, and religious reasons. Instead of promoting exclusionary organizations, perhaps a concerted effort to change the laws (an "implied consent" approach) would be more in order. Just my opinion, though.