Political parties have called for The Big Donor Show to be scrapped, but broadcaster BNN says it will highlight the country's shortage of organ donors.
"It's a crazy idea," said Joop Atsma, of the ruling Christian Democrat Party.
"It can't be possible that, in the Netherlands, people vote about who's getting a kidney," he told the BBC.
The programme, from Big Brother creators Endemol, is due to be screened on Friday night.
'Totally unacceptable'
Viewers will also be able to send in their advice by text message during the 80-minute show.
When I first heard this story on the BBC this morning, I thought what a horrible, tasteless idea. Reality shows have gone too far (again). But, after listening to both sides in the debate, I wonder. The contestants have a 1 in 3 chance of getting a kidney on this show versus a 1 in 1000s on a donor list. Plus, if it and the debate surrounding it brings attention to the sad dearth of organ donors (a problem in the US as well), then maybe it will all be for the best. But still a little creepy no matter how you look it.Oh, and they get around legal problems because in Holland a donor can choose the recipient so long as the donation is made while the donor is living. After a person dies the law stipulates it goes to the list.
| |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/entertainment/6699847.stm
4 comments:
Personally, I feel there are other ways to bring the plight of those in need of organ transplants to the public's attention instead of turning a deadly serious situation into mindless, tasteless entertainment for the masses.
Why do these three candidates get preference over the 1000s of others in equally dire need on the waiting list?
And why would anyone find it entertaining to watch three terminally ill people vie for the transplant, have one win, and watch the other two practically condemned to death? WTF, folks? Seriously?
And, conversely, if somehow the their stardom inspires others to donate their organs so that everyone on the show gets the transplants they need (wouldn't that make for a great, warm and fuzzy TV moment? I can see it now...), doesn't that compound the unfair lack of attention that everyone NOT on the show is getting?
Frankly, this is only slightly less disgusting than, say, having inmates on death row fight in gladiatorial combat for a commuted sentence.
Being entertained while watching people fight for their lives, knowing that to do so means two others might very well die if they win, is just... There are no words. "Morally and ethically Reprehensible" falls way short.
And that's my official knee jerk reaction. :) I'll post again if I've thought about it for a while and change my mind... but until such time, I can't help but feel that this is absolutely disgusting.
Morally I find the entire concept tasteless and somewhere in the same zip code as "damn, you are a person devoid of honest care for your fellow man." A show like that and the participants and voyeurs who view it, have left the plane of anything resembling respectability. The good done by giving someone an organ is far outweighed in my mind by the bankrupt nature of the a tv reality show based on it.
Having said that, it is the donor's choice in the Netherlands to decide on the recipient. And their is no law against being a vile human being when you are not directly harming anyone physically (at least in the Netherlands I am assuming) - this goes for both the donor and the tv producers.
So... In order to be consistent with my constructed ethical framework, I am going to have to say that the donor and the participants and the producers/crew and the viewers, though totally without true care for their fellow man, have the freedom to do this program.
I would hope they would respect the dignity humanity and can the show, but a television producer is usually not above appealing to the very basest things in man.
------------------------------------
As for Beck's show idea of "Death Row Gladiators", it couldn't actually air. At least in the US, not even on cable or pay-per-view. Well, at least not yet. You may have a direct-to-video market for that though. The restrictions are much looser on direct-to-video (see the "Faces of Death" series - remember that was the #1 stolen thing when we worked at the video store).
The problem you would face in "Death Row Gladiators" is that no one would want them to go free following the program. And... wait... convicted death row inmates fighting for their lives... thinking they'll be set free, but not being set free... that's the exact plot for 1987's The Running Man. Great movie! Richard Dawson is awesome in it!
"Killian! I'll be back!"
"Only in a rerun."
Good stuff.
------------------------------------
In no way was I advocating this. I find i t a little repulsive. The "silver lining" I might could see was that it would turn attention toward the lack of available organs for people in dire need of donations. Seriously people, be an organ donor. Your organs are useless when you are dead, so check the box for organ donor next time you are at the DMV. Very well might save someone else's life. That was all. Just thought a couple of people might watch the show and think, "Damn, I really should be an organ donor."
As per John's idea. I am guessing that Rupert Murdoch has already checked into it and is hoping that he can successfully lobby either the US Congress or the State of Nevada to allow him to put a show like this on the air. And an easy way around the dilemma Brian mentioned is not to let the go, but to change their sentence from death to life in a white collar prison, you know the type of place the Martha Stewarts and Scooter Libbys get to go.
Or you know, we could actually give the victor of the combat a choice: Door #1, Door #2, or Door #3.
One is a life sentence in a beautiful white collar prison resort! Tennis Courts, swimming pools, and racketball! Oh my!
One door, however, leads to a pit full of hungry rats... the other to the massive intake of an industrial wood chipper! Weeeee!
That will certainly make his "victory" more exciting...
Post a Comment