Should organ donation be manditory?

[Shio]

Sorry, your "reasons" are your own. I find it inherently distasteful that a government will have control over my body by default.

Who are you to decide how I should fell about my body, dead or otherwise?

You have the right to do whatever you want with your body as long as it does not inteerfer with the well being of others. Refusing to donate after death interfers with the well being of other. Your right to freedom of expression and speech does not cover that.

No, I've the right to do anything with my body, regardless of the well being of my others.

You have the right to inject methamphetamines? That's news to me.

Yes, I do. Unfortunately, some dipshit in Washington thinks I don't.

Who is, in this case, dictating your right? It sounds like you are, and this may be news to you, champ, but you don't get to dictate your own rights.

You do. You just have to expect others to take action.

Example: I can decide I am going to kill someone. Sure, some people will likely be none too pleased with that and want me dead or in prison. But I can do it and I can try to escape prison if I wish.

"Rights" are a man made illusion.

Killing someone is your right. Just as someone defending themselves by killing you is their right. Society is a jumble of these implicit and explicit compromises.

Well then, boss, taking your organs after death is the government's right.

Yes, sweetie. They can do whatever they want. They won't though. You know why? Angry people don't re-elect.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Finding something distasteful is a valid argument because I don't need to explain my personal opinions.

I won't care about my body if I'm dead, right? I care about my body when I'm dead because I am currently alive. And if I feel I don't like something in the future, I will not approve of it now.

I'm not looking out for social welfare, I am not out for the greater good. I find the idea of government having control over my body by default as repulsive, and I oppose all laws that aim to reach that effect.

No it's not. Whether or not you find something distasteful is not a good enough reason to deny someone their chance at living.

Yes it is. It's called subjectivity. I see the world through my own eyes, and by default, my perspective is superior to all others. You may disagree, but that's your perspective

So your perspective is superior to that of a physician when it comes to treatment options for a cancer patient?

Yes, my perspective is always superior. I perceive a physician to be qualified in some matters, and I perceive to follow his/her directions.


Not matter what happens, the individual perspective is always superior.

But you just admitted that the physicians perspective is superior.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

That's different since the person is still conscious. When it comes to brain death you're no longer a person. In fact, "you" are death. Just because your body is kept alive doesn't mean your personality, thoughts, wishes and goals are. As a person, you do not exist the moment you become brain dead.

That isn't objectively true. What constitutes personhood is extremely ill-defined. I find it deeply disturbing that you feel comfortable making that philosophical decision for every single person within your country.

We do know for a fact that everything you "are" is housed in the brain. If you're brain dead, you're no longer a person.

Sorry for the double post.

 

[Giest4life]

Finding something distasteful is a valid argument because I don't need to explain my personal opinions.

I won't care about my body if I'm dead, right? I care about my body when I'm dead because I am currently alive. And if I feel I don't like something in the future, I will not approve of it now.

I'm not looking out for social welfare, I am not out for the greater good. I find the idea of government having control over my body by default as repulsive, and I oppose all laws that aim to reach that effect.

No it's not. Whether or not you find something distasteful is not a good enough reason to deny someone their chance at living.

Yes it is. It's called subjectivity. I see the world through my own eyes, and by default, my perspective is superior to all others. You may disagree, but that's your perspective

So your perspective is superior to that of a physician when it comes to treatment options for a cancer patient?

Yes, my perspective is always superior. I perceive a physician to be qualified in some matters, and I perceive to follow his/her directions.


Not matter what happens, the individual perspective is always superior.

But you just admitted that the physicians perspective is superior.

That's your perspective, because I didn't.

 

[icaritos]

No. My body, my organs. When I'm dead, my will has first rights to decide what happens to my body, followed by my family.

I don't care if someone needs them. That's not my problem.

Could you possibly be any more selfish and inconsiderate? Actually don't answer that, the answer might be too depressing.

 

[Giest4life]

Sorry, your "reasons" are your own. I find it inherently distasteful that a government will have control over my body by default.

Who are you to decide how I should fell about my body, dead or otherwise?

You have the right to do whatever you want with your body as long as it does not inteerfer with the well being of others. Refusing to donate after death interfers with the well being of other. Your right to freedom of expression and speech does not cover that.

No, I've the right to do anything with my body, regardless of the well being of my others.

You have the right to inject methamphetamines? That's news to me.

Yes, I do. Unfortunately, some dipshit in Washington thinks I don't.

Who is, in this case, dictating your right? It sounds like you are, and this may be news to you, champ, but you don't get to dictate your own rights.

You do. You just have to expect others to take action.

Example: I can decide I am going to kill someone. Sure, some people will likely be none too pleased with that and want me dead or in prison. But I can do it and I can try to escape prison if I wish.

"Rights" are a man made illusion.

Killing someone is your right. Just as someone defending themselves by killing you is their right. Society is a jumble of these implicit and explicit compromises.

Well then, boss, taking your organs after death is the government's right.

Yes, sweetie. They can do whatever they want. They won't though. You know why? Angry people don't re-elect.

No, they won't because if I knew they'd do that I'd rather burn my body before that happens.

 

[Kyoufuu]

Sorry, your "reasons" are your own. I find it inherently distasteful that a government will have control over my body by default.

Who are you to decide how I should fell about my body, dead or otherwise?

You have the right to do whatever you want with your body as long as it does not inteerfer with the well being of others. Refusing to donate after death interfers with the well being of other. Your right to freedom of expression and speech does not cover that.

No, I've the right to do anything with my body, regardless of the well being of my others.

You have the right to inject methamphetamines? That's news to me.

Yes, I do. Unfortunately, some dipshit in Washington thinks I don't.

Who is, in this case, dictating your right? It sounds like you are, and this may be news to you, champ, but you don't get to dictate your own rights.

Yes, it's called society, champ.

I do have that right, and like I said, some dipshit in Washington has imposed penalties on my exercising my right. It's still my right, except with external consequences.

It seems to me that you're defining 'right' as 'anything I can physically do'. They aren't the same, chief. You do not have the right to take illegal drugs.

Champ, my right is whatever I define it as. It is of no consequence that I'm defining something physical in this argument.

Ok, I'm going to dictate one of my rights then, buddy. All using your logic. It is my right that I get to decide whether or not your organs are havested after death.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Finding something distasteful is a valid argument because I don't need to explain my personal opinions.

I won't care about my body if I'm dead, right? I care about my body when I'm dead because I am currently alive. And if I feel I don't like something in the future, I will not approve of it now.

I'm not looking out for social welfare, I am not out for the greater good. I find the idea of government having control over my body by default as repulsive, and I oppose all laws that aim to reach that effect.

No it's not. Whether or not you find something distasteful is not a good enough reason to deny someone their chance at living.

Yes it is. It's called subjectivity. I see the world through my own eyes, and by default, my perspective is superior to all others. You may disagree, but that's your perspective

So your perspective is superior to that of a physician when it comes to treatment options for a cancer patient?

Yes, my perspective is always superior. I perceive a physician to be qualified in some matters, and I perceive to follow his/her directions.


Not matter what happens, the individual perspective is always superior.

But you just admitted that the physicians perspective is superior.

That's your perspective, because I didn't.

But you literally just said you'd follow his perspective. Why else would you follow it if you didn't perceive it as superior?

 

[Giest4life]

Sorry, your "reasons" are your own. I find it inherently distasteful that a government will have control over my body by default.

Who are you to decide how I should fell about my body, dead or otherwise?

You have the right to do whatever you want with your body as long as it does not inteerfer with the well being of others. Refusing to donate after death interfers with the well being of other. Your right to freedom of expression and speech does not cover that.

No, I've the right to do anything with my body, regardless of the well being of my others.

You have the right to inject methamphetamines? That's news to me.

Yes, I do. Unfortunately, some dipshit in Washington thinks I don't.

Who is, in this case, dictating your right? It sounds like you are, and this may be news to you, champ, but you don't get to dictate your own rights.

Yes, it's called society, champ.

I do have that right, and like I said, some dipshit in Washington has imposed penalties on my exercising my right. It's still my right, except with external consequences.

It seems to me that you're defining 'right' as 'anything I can physically do'. They aren't the same, chief. You do not have the right to take illegal drugs.

Champ, my right is whatever I define it as. It is of no consequence that I'm defining something physical in this argument.

Ok, I'm going to dictate one of my rights then, buddy. All using your logic. It is my right that I get to decide whether or not your organs are havested after death.

Now you are on the right path. Now you are getting it.

And it is my right to put put lead into the brain of a senator who proposes that bill. Conversely, SS has the right to blow my brains out if I did that

 

[Normalgamer]

Hell fucking no. Not even a fucking opt-out thing. It's not that I don't want to donate my organs or whatever, it's the idea that I won't have control over them when I die. If I knew they were gonna take my organs without my permission, In my dying moments I'd probably set fire to myself or something. Seriously, I'm abhorrent to the idea of organ donation.

You're abhorrent to the idea a part of your body could save someone else's life? That's pretty fucked up.

 

[Alchemist08]

While it's a wonderful idea, and could do a lot of good, i see some big reprecussions from it. The problem here, is making it 'mandatory' pretty much states that the government owns your body, and you are just leasing it till death, at which point they recover their property. I don't want to be the big bad conspiracy theorist here, but aren't we already fighting major legal battles, that have been going on for decades now, over the government deciding what we can or can't do with our bodies? Abortion, Marijuana? While i think an opt-out program vs the current opt-in would be good, i see it being a slippery slope, where if we give ground here, there could be issues on other matters pertaining to the issue of personal choice and freedoms pertaining to our own bodies.

 

[Kyoufuu]

Sorry, your "reasons" are your own. I find it inherently distasteful that a government will have control over my body by default.

Who are you to decide how I should fell about my body, dead or otherwise?

You have the right to do whatever you want with your body as long as it does not inteerfer with the well being of others. Refusing to donate after death interfers with the well being of other. Your right to freedom of expression and speech does not cover that.

No, I've the right to do anything with my body, regardless of the well being of my others.

You have the right to inject methamphetamines? That's news to me.

Yes, I do. Unfortunately, some dipshit in Washington thinks I don't.

Who is, in this case, dictating your right? It sounds like you are, and this may be news to you, champ, but you don't get to dictate your own rights.

Yes, it's called society, champ.

I do have that right, and like I said, some dipshit in Washington has imposed penalties on my exercising my right. It's still my right, except with external consequences.

It seems to me that you're defining 'right' as 'anything I can physically do'. They aren't the same, chief. You do not have the right to take illegal drugs.

Champ, my right is whatever I define it as. It is of no consequence that I'm defining something physical in this argument.

Ok, I'm going to dictate one of my rights then, buddy. All using your logic. It is my right that I get to decide whether or not your organs are havested after death.

Now you are on the right path. Now you are getting it.

And it is my right to put put lead into the brain of a senator who proposes that bill. Conversely, SS has the right to blow my brains out if I did that

The point of my post is that it was bullshit. I don't have the right to dictate who gets your organs! I think I'll stop feeding you now.

 

[Giest4life]

Finding something distasteful is a valid argument because I don't need to explain my personal opinions.

I won't care about my body if I'm dead, right? I care about my body when I'm dead because I am currently alive. And if I feel I don't like something in the future, I will not approve of it now.

I'm not looking out for social welfare, I am not out for the greater good. I find the idea of government having control over my body by default as repulsive, and I oppose all laws that aim to reach that effect.

No it's not. Whether or not you find something distasteful is not a good enough reason to deny someone their chance at living.

Yes it is. It's called subjectivity. I see the world through my own eyes, and by default, my perspective is superior to all others. You may disagree, but that's your perspective

So your perspective is superior to that of a physician when it comes to treatment options for a cancer patient?

Yes, my perspective is always superior. I perceive a physician to be qualified in some matters, and I perceive to follow his/her directions.


Not matter what happens, the individual perspective is always superior.

But you just admitted that the physicians perspective is superior.

That's your perspective, because I didn't.

But you literally just said you'd follow his perspective. Why else would you follow it if you didn't perceive it as superior?

No, I literally didn't. Your perspective is welcome, but is inferior.

 

[Giest4life]

Sorry, your "reasons" are your own. I find it inherently distasteful that a government will have control over my body by default.

Who are you to decide how I should fell about my body, dead or otherwise?

You have the right to do whatever you want with your body as long as it does not inteerfer with the well being of others. Refusing to donate after death interfers with the well being of other. Your right to freedom of expression and speech does not cover that.

No, I've the right to do anything with my body, regardless of the well being of my others.

You have the right to inject methamphetamines? That's news to me.

Yes, I do. Unfortunately, some dipshit in Washington thinks I don't.

Who is, in this case, dictating your right? It sounds like you are, and this may be news to you, champ, but you don't get to dictate your own rights.

Yes, it's called society, champ.

I do have that right, and like I said, some dipshit in Washington has imposed penalties on my exercising my right. It's still my right, except with external consequences.

It seems to me that you're defining 'right' as 'anything I can physically do'. They aren't the same, chief. You do not have the right to take illegal drugs.

Champ, my right is whatever I define it as. It is of no consequence that I'm defining something physical in this argument.

Ok, I'm going to dictate one of my rights then, buddy. All using your logic. It is my right that I get to decide whether or not your organs are havested after death.

Now you are on the right path. Now you are getting it.

And it is my right to put put lead into the brain of a senator who proposes that bill. Conversely, SS has the right to blow my brains out if I did that

Not-sure-if-trolling-or-just-very-stupid.jpg

Sad, you think I'm trolling, because you obviously have no knowledge of epistemology.

 

[Gigano]

...
Wow...now they don't even have a choice?

No, if you're mentally unable to make and cummunicate decisions on your own, then the current legal order assign you a legal guardian to make those choices for you (usually a parent or close relative)

Simple. Your mother can be saved by a replacement organ from a donator. My non-donator gets shafted simply by need (which still may fail)

I was referring to the right of the person who donated the organs to have them used as (s)he intended. Surely this person have as much right that his organs be used in accordance with his choice as the one who chose they should remain in his corpse has?

Though the addition of providing a greater chance for other persons should of course be factored into the equation as well.

Not answered whether she is more important yet.

It should be clear from my stance that I consider the living more important than the dead.

And these are still may's, which imply may not's.

Still, a shot at life is better than death. It's an inherently positive factor.

Being a Virgin Mother of Eight. I assume you picked that label for a reason.

I don't think being a mother is a medical condition.

Of course, virgins are seldom mothers, but seldom are they pregnant either, so there's no indication of pregnancy present.

But that's no need to condemn non-donators for manslaughter, is it?

Nope, but it's a reason to remedy the situation. That something isn't exactly unethical - but merely ethically neutral - hardly preclude that you can establish a system serving another, ethical purpose.

No. I have decided that it's a choice for the individual to make.

As have I. I've simply slightly altered the course it must take to make that choice a reality, in order to better utilize those individuals who are utterly indifferent as to how their corpses are potentially utilized, enough so to never care to choose anything but passivity in the matter.

Again, calling non-donators equivalent to manslaughter is an unfair and unjust accusation.

...and when did I do that?

How can you regret when dead?

You can't, but you can in your final moments, as can your surviving family. And that regret might just as well be that you're not a donor as it could be that you are.

Apart from you've just possibly killed someone...as you've already stated.

No, you simply didn't take the most ethical path available, which isn't the same as your action being in any way unethical.

So giving the family/individual choice is a good thing?

Most certainly.

As is shaping the conditions so that the result of indifference on the subject will be beneficial to others.

Or giving the opportunity to make a decision in the first place.

Which already exists.

Not if there ain't any organs to choose from it doesn't. As is too often the case.

Ok, a fourth coma patient has just died. He opted out before going into the coma. He has a heart that could save this woman, and no legal guardian.

What exactly would your legal backlash be if a Doctor took his heart and used it to save your mother's life? Would there be one?

Because if there isn't, what weight does the entire opt-out system hold?

The same as it would be now if he'd used someone who hadn't opted in. If you've opted out, then your position is the exact same as those who haven't opted in these days.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Sorry, your "reasons" are your own. I find it inherently distasteful that a government will have control over my body by default.

Who are you to decide how I should fell about my body, dead or otherwise?

You have the right to do whatever you want with your body as long as it does not inteerfer with the well being of others. Refusing to donate after death interfers with the well being of other. Your right to freedom of expression and speech does not cover that.

No, I've the right to do anything with my body, regardless of the well being of my others.

You have the right to inject methamphetamines? That's news to me.

Yes, I do. Unfortunately, some dipshit in Washington thinks I don't.

Who is, in this case, dictating your right? It sounds like you are, and this may be news to you, champ, but you don't get to dictate your own rights.

Yes, it's called society, champ.

I do have that right, and like I said, some dipshit in Washington has imposed penalties on my exercising my right. It's still my right, except with external consequences.

It seems to me that you're defining 'right' as 'anything I can physically do'. They aren't the same, chief. You do not have the right to take illegal drugs.

Champ, my right is whatever I define it as. It is of no consequence that I'm defining something physical in this argument.

Ok, I'm going to dictate one of my rights then, buddy. All using your logic. It is my right that I get to decide whether or not your organs are havested after death.

Now you are on the right path. Now you are getting it.

And it is my right to put put lead into the brain of a senator who proposes that bill. Conversely, SS has the right to blow my brains out if I did that

You're either a troll or someone with some form of personality disorder.

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

Firstly, well done on the edit. You wouldn't want to stand by what you say or anything. Nah. Just take it back. That's fine.

Secondly, that is my opinion. If someone wants parts of my body, they can pay my estate for them. I imagine there are some wealthy people in need of organs and my family stand to profit nicely.

1): Uuuuuuuuum... no.

I'll tell you what happened;

I explained my argument to you, you misunderstood (fair enough).
I explain it again in another way.
You now understand.
However, since you still don't understand my previous explaination, you assume that it must therefore be different to the new one which you understand.

2): I can't make you change your mind at this point. We have reached the opinion barrier in the argument.

That's fine, you're entitled to your horrifcally selfish opinion.

Discussion over.

 

[Giest4life]

Sorry, your "reasons" are your own. I find it inherently distasteful that a government will have control over my body by default.

Who are you to decide how I should fell about my body, dead or otherwise?

You have the right to do whatever you want with your body as long as it does not inteerfer with the well being of others. Refusing to donate after death interfers with the well being of other. Your right to freedom of expression and speech does not cover that.

No, I've the right to do anything with my body, regardless of the well being of my others.

You have the right to inject methamphetamines? That's news to me.

Yes, I do. Unfortunately, some dipshit in Washington thinks I don't.

Who is, in this case, dictating your right? It sounds like you are, and this may be news to you, champ, but you don't get to dictate your own rights.

Yes, it's called society, champ.

I do have that right, and like I said, some dipshit in Washington has imposed penalties on my exercising my right. It's still my right, except with external consequences.

It seems to me that you're defining 'right' as 'anything I can physically do'. They aren't the same, chief. You do not have the right to take illegal drugs.

Champ, my right is whatever I define it as. It is of no consequence that I'm defining something physical in this argument.

Ok, I'm going to dictate one of my rights then, buddy. All using your logic. It is my right that I get to decide whether or not your organs are havested after death.

Now you are on the right path. Now you are getting it.

And it is my right to put put lead into the brain of a senator who proposes that bill. Conversely, SS has the right to blow my brains out if I did that

You're either a troll or someone with some form of personality disorder.

And you, sadly, have no knowledge of epistemology and the ensuing arguments of relativity and subjectivity.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Finding something distasteful is a valid argument because I don't need to explain my personal opinions.

I won't care about my body if I'm dead, right? I care about my body when I'm dead because I am currently alive. And if I feel I don't like something in the future, I will not approve of it now.

I'm not looking out for social welfare, I am not out for the greater good. I find the idea of government having control over my body by default as repulsive, and I oppose all laws that aim to reach that effect.

No it's not. Whether or not you find something distasteful is not a good enough reason to deny someone their chance at living.

Yes it is. It's called subjectivity. I see the world through my own eyes, and by default, my perspective is superior to all others. You may disagree, but that's your perspective

So your perspective is superior to that of a physician when it comes to treatment options for a cancer patient?

Yes, my perspective is always superior. I perceive a physician to be qualified in some matters, and I perceive to follow his/her directions.


Not matter what happens, the individual perspective is always superior.

But you just admitted that the physicians perspective is superior.

That's your perspective, because I didn't.

But you literally just said you'd follow his perspective. Why else would you follow it if you didn't perceive it as superior?

No, I literally didn't. Your perspective is welcome, but is inferior.

How do you know that?