Stem cell research

[nslay]

Exactly, which is why we shouldn't give them the option to replace their organs on their 3rd+ time.

Why 3? Why not 1? Or 5? Or none?

I think this is a pretty callous position to take, not to mention arrogant and judgemental. What qualifies you to decide who should receive life-saving medial treatment and who should not? Why should you get to dictate how people should live their lives?

What the hell business is it of yours?

Usually near death experiences or major problems change people.  This would be their second chance.  On the third chance, if they had not changed on their second chance, why should we waste perfectly good organs? 

You might argue that, because we can grow organs, their value diminishes.  True, but that doesn't fix addiciton problems.  I am sure new laws would be placed such that if addicts recieve organ transplants, they ought be put in rehab.

Arrogant?  I'm looking at it practically.

Hehe, I just noticed this, but this reminds me of a warranty system.  Abusing your organs would be a violation of the warranty hehe.

[Adron]

Hehe, I just noticed this, but this reminds me of a warranty system.  Abusing your organs would be a violation of the warranty hehe.

Of course, whether it should be covered by warranty or not could be debated. I don't see any reason not to provide optional out-of-warranty genetically modified organ transplant services though.

[Topaz]

Rofl. Body part warranties.

[Adron]

Rofl. Body part warranties.

Well, it's typically called something like "medical insurance", and it lets doctors save your life after you've been run over by a truck even when you don't have money on you.

[nslay]

Rofl. Body part warranties.

Well, it's typically called something like "medical insurance", and it lets doctors save your life after you've been run over by a truck even when you don't have money on you.

And how does medical insurance treat people who abuse drugs? 

drug = alcohol, cigarettes etc...

I can see two possibilities:
1) Charge higher rates
2) If it was unknown they abuse drugs, my guess would be that they wouldn't cover costs for say, I don't know, liver disease caused by alcohol?  If they covered the cost, probably charge higher rates afterwards, and maybe penalty fees?

But then again, that depends on your insurance company...
Insurance is based off of a lot of probability, I am sure an insurance company is interested if you do drugs or not.  Given this information they can factor the correct statistics and determine the correct rate to charge.  If you lied about doing a drug and they find out, I'm sure in most cases, this would null and void your contract.  If not, then they might cover costs and then charge higher rates thereafter.
Here, we see that rates determine how "privy" you are to coverage. 

[Arta]

I think that access to medical treatment is a basic right that should be provided to people in any modern society, and that that right can't be conditioned upon one group of people's judgements about another group's lifestyle.

[Adron]

I think that access to medical treatment is a basic right that should be provided to people in any modern society, and that that right can't be conditioned upon one group of people's judgements about another group's lifestyle.

I think that access to reasonably cost-efficient medical treatment for conditions that aren't self-inflicted, should be provided to everyone in a modern society. I think medical treatment of self-inflicted conditions could well be provided at the patient's own expense. Same with non-cost-efficient medical treatment.