"My kidney belongs to Christ"

[Mojo]

Vbloke posted this over at the UK Skeptics forum.

http://larknews.com/may_2004/secondary.php?page=2

Aleta Smith, who donated her kidney to a 20-year-old college student last year, wants it back now that the student has changed religions.

...

I feel helpless," she says. "Part of my body, my DNA, is stuck inside a person who's going to hell." Smith suffers nightmares of her former organ filtering "strange Asian teas, pig blood and witch doctor brews in Africa," she says.

...

"My kidney belongs to Christ. It will never be Pagan."

[supercorgi]

Wow, talk about an indian giver! These fundies just sound whackier and whackier every day. :rolleyes:

[Rufo]

From the same article:
She wonders if the Lord really wanted her to donate the kidney, or if she acted on a "triple-espresso high" she had that morning.
Sounds like that kidney could use a little strange Asian tea.

[tkingdoll]

Calling all skeptics, calling all skeptics...

LarkNews® is a satirical newspaper published by Joel Kilpatrick.
LarkNews uses invented names in all its stories, except in cases when public
figures are being satirized. Any other use of real names is accidental and
coincidental.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Calling all skeptics, calling all skeptics...
Think I'll let the machine get this one.

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

I wouldn't put it past a fundie to pull something like that.

[tkingdoll]

I find it ironic that at the same time that this person would claim to be a christian as if it is synonymous with being supremely moral, yet at the same time have so much contempt for those not of her faith that she would not be willing to provide a life saving gift such as an organ donation unless the recipient were christian. Is she following the same Jesus that hung out with prostitutes and lepers? I'm not a christian but, If she believes in the NT then she should ask WWJD!

It's satire. Not real. Fake. A joke. For fun. A parody.

[supercorgi]

It's satire. Not real. Fake. A joke. For fun. A parody.

I'm relieved. The problem is that it is very believable parody - I can really see some fundy taking this position. It's not enough over-the-top that it's an obvious parody. Maybe it's better in England but we have some truly scary people in the U.S. (just look at Fred Phelps for example).

[Katana]

I'm relieved. The problem is that it is very believable parody - I can really see some fundy taking this position. It's not enough over-the-top that it's an obvious parody. Maybe it's better in England but we have some truly scary people in the U.S. (just look at Fred Phelps for example).
I'm with you. Did anyone here see that episode of Wife Swap with the fundamentalist Christian woman who is sent to live with an ultra-hippie family that believes in astrology and the like. We watched it just based on the previews because we just had to see whether she was as crazy as she seemed. She was absolutely nuts, yelling things like "Jesus Christ my lord and savior, Jesus CHRIST my lord and savior..." over and over again and louder and louder as if to ward off the bad spirits around her. I seriously thought that she was going to have a heart attack.

Did anyone else see that? I bet she would want her kidney back if one of her kids did this.

[Dark Jaguar]

Yeah, I figured it had to be a parody. While I'm familiar with how nutty religious beliefs can get, this doesn't seem likely. People only go crazy in certain ways ya know :D. If someone was crazy enough to think their kidneys were actually taken straight to heaven with them (as opposed to "merely" crazy enough to realize flesh ROTS in the ground but your "spiritual" kidney will be created anew and will last forever in magical fairy land, filtering love from dreams), I doubt they would ever concent to this to begin with. Likely the religious person that obsessed with their own body being with them when they go would cry "my body is a temple I won't defile with medical procedures" or would have already found fault in the person they donated the kidney to making them unworthy of the only sort of salvation that matters, the kind from physical and mental harm (in this case physical).

The thing is, fundamentalists can think a lot of crazy things, of this we all agree, but what is forgotten is they rationalize themselves INTO these crazy things (due to originally irrational reasons) most of the time and aren't just mindless shouting boxes (though I admit the distinction is hard to make sometimes). It's all well and good to make light of them but a little understanding of where they are coming from makes clear the difference between parody and their actual silly beliefs.

Then again sometimes I have no desire to see where they are coming from when their only intent in the argument is to hit me over the head with the blunt end of the summery of their beliefs and nothing more.

[supercorgi]

Yeah, I figured it had to be a parody. While I'm familiar with how nutty religious beliefs can get, this doesn't seem likely. People only go crazy in certain ways ya know :D. If someone was crazy enough to think their kidneys were actually taken straight to heaven with them (as opposed to "merely" crazy enough to realize flesh ROTS in the ground but your "spiritual" kidney will be created anew and will last forever in magical fairy land, filtering love from dreams), I doubt they would ever concent to this to begin with.

I don't know for sure but don't the people who believe in the Rapture believe that their physical bodies will rise up?

[tkingdoll]

I'm relieved. The problem is that it is very believable parody

Yes. I would even go so far as to say it's not a very good one - it's not funny, even when you realise it's fake, and there aren't enough clues. Compare it to your average Onion article, which is just absurd enough to raise a mental flag, and it's very wanting.

[brodski]

Yes. I would even go so far as to say it's not a very good one - it's not funny, even when you realise it's fake, and there aren't enough clues. Compare it to your average Onion article, which is just absurd enough to raise a mental flag, and it's very wanting.
It's especially believable today, as all the nuts have been drawn out of the woodwork over this issue in the UK, because the government has finally decided that if someone carries an organ doner card, then their families permission is not needed to extract their organs after their death.

[Katana]

It's especially believable today, as all the nuts have been drawn out of the woodwork over this issue in the UK, because the government has finally decided that if someone carries an organ doner card, then their families permission is not needed to extract their organs after their death.
How has this drawn them out? Is it the nutty relatives of said donor card carriers who are unhappy that their rights to completely disregard the wishes of a relative have been violated?

[tkingdoll]

the government has finally decided that if someone carries an organ doner card, then their families permission is not needed to extract their organs after their death.

I didn't know that! Hooray! That's superb news. About time too.

[brodski]

How has this drawn them out? Is it the nutty relatives of said donor card carriers who are unhappy that their rights to completely disregard the wishes of a relative have been violated?
Yes, the Daily (hate) Mail had a front page "horror" story about how relatives will no longer be able to impose their religious and moral beliefs on deceased relatives who didn't share those views, and who wanted to help others live, after they had died. :(

[brodski]

I didn't know that! Hooray! That's superb news. About time too.
I agree, the right-wing tabloid press where screaming about how this was a step closer to "presumed consent" where people would have to opt out, rather than in to, organ donor schemes. My thoughts where
1) not really, this is all about respecting the wishes of the deceased and
2) if it is, good!

[tkingdoll]

Yes, the Daily (hate) Mail had a front page "horror" story about how relatives will no longer be able to impose their religious and moral beliefs on deceased relatives who didn't share those views, and who wanted to help others live, after they had died. :(

Just found the BBC article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5298646.stm

Yes, it's a shame that relatives will no longer be able to ride roughshod over the wishes of the deceased. It's rather akin to being able to overrule someone's will. I'm very glad to see this change.

[Katana]

Yes, the Daily (hate) Mail had a front page "horror" story about how relatives will no longer be able to impose their religious and moral beliefs on deceased relatives who didn't share those views, and who wanted to help others live, after they had died. :(
I find that so dispicable, and I applaud your government for stimying their efforts. Is there a chance that these people could overturn whatever legislation was behind the change in policy?

[Dark Jaguar]

I wasn't aware that relatives had such power in the UK, but it is a good thing such "rights" were taken away from them. I mean if someone has an organ doner card, it is rather clear what their intentions were.

Wait, isn't this the same magical country that had a hilarious sketch involving "early withdrawl" of someone's organ donation?

At any rate now I've got to reconsider how possible such a situation of "I want my organ back" could be...

[brodski]

I find that so dispicable, and I applaud your government for stimying their efforts. Is there a chance that these people could overturn whatever legislation was behind the change in policy?
The rules don't come in until Friday, so they've got about 3 hours left to try ;)
but I cant see any grounds to overturn this regulation. If they want to try, they will have a long hard fight on their hands. I can see many more legal challenges to "presumed consent" if it was ever seriously proposed.

[Mashuna]

The rules don't come in until Friday, so they've got about 3 hours left to try ;)
but I cant see any grounds to overturn this regulation. If they want to try, they will have a long hard fight on their hands. I can see many more legal challenges to "presumed consent" if it was ever seriously proposed.

From what I understand, we're one of the few countries in Europe that doesn't already have a presumed consent system. What kind of legal challenges do you think would arise if the government tried to bring it in here?

[brodski]

From what I understand, we're one of the few countries in Europe that doesn't already have a presumed consent system. What kind of legal challenges do you think would arise if the government tried to bring it in here?
I think you may find religious challenges, especially in cases where someone was mistakenly not opted out of the system, I'm not sure that they would win but they would probably cause enough of a headache fro the government that the proposals would be dropped pretty quickly.

[Dark Jaguar]

Presumed concent eh? Now there's an interesting idea. As much as I try to see a downside to it, once you're dead, you're dead. Unless you make your wishes to not be scavenged clear I don't see it being that bad a thing to harvest away. I'm trying to intentionally use words that evoke the worst image of this I can manage (scavenge and desecrate) and I still can't see an issue with presumed concent.

[brodski]

Presumed concent eh? Now there's an interesting idea. As much as I try to see a downside to it, once you're dead, you're dead. Unless you make your wishes to not be scavenged clear I don't see it being that bad a thing to harvest away. I'm trying to intentionally use words that evoke the worst image of this I can manage (scavenge and desecrate) and I still can't see an issue with presumed concent.
I cant think of any real problems with it either, but I am often out of step with the views of the British public.

[tkingdoll]

Would the adminstration be more problematic? That's assuming more people opt out than currently opt in. The database would be larger (and all hospitals have to access it), and the potential for errors larger.

[Dark Jaguar]

Somehow I don't think such problems would actually HURT anything overall (and are things I think people would willingly put up with and work to overcome) when the alternative is our current SEVERE LACK of organs to transplant. (I say "our" in the global sense.)

[brodski]

Somehow I don't think such problems would actually HURT anything overall (and are things I think people would willingly put up with and work to overcome) when the alternative is our current SEVERE LACK of organs to transplant. (I say "our" in the global sense.)
It would probably hurt a good number of political careers, and probably cost the NHS millions every time organs where removed from someone who had "opted out" under the current system (the one that started today!) the chances of the NHS being successfully sued is minimal.
You also have to remember that neither the NHS nor the public has forgotten this episode: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1136723.stm

[kittykatkarma]

I have heard of certain body parts having a mind of their own... specifically a male body part, and of course there are the highly publicized privates (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1722041&postcount=1) of Slingblade; who any day we expect will post a rebuttal...

But this is the first I've heard of a kidney having a mind of it's own, and making choices.

"My kidney belongs to Christ. It will never be Pagan."

[tkingdoll]

I have heard of certain body parts having a mind of their own... specifically a male body part, and of course there are the highly publicized privates (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1722041&postcount=1) of Slingblade; who any day we expect will post a rebuttal...

But this is the first I've heard of a kidney having a mind of it's own, and making choices.

When making up quotes, satirists like to draw attention to the absurd but common habit we all have of humanising inanimate objects. It's quite a common device in comedy because it's such a niave justification from the person being parodied.

[kittykatkarma]

When making up quotes, satirists like to draw attention to the absurd but common habit we all have of humanising inanimate objects. It's quite a common device in comedy because it's such a niave justification from the person being parodied.

Oh I agree. All for sensationalism, the more outrageous the more attention.

[tkingdoll]

Oh I agree. All for sensationalism, the more outrageous the more attention.

And it worked, too! That story is on the famous JREF forum, for a start!

I would be interested to know how much the author intended for it to provoke knee-jerk fundie bashing, or whether he was just trying to be funny. I don't think it works as the latter, but has great potential for the former.

But then, is that any different to me saying "A fundie killed her baby with alcohol poisoning because she only fed it wine, the blood of Christ!" and then sitting back and waiting for the anger, chuckling to myself?