Should organ donation be manditory?

[Trasken]

The way i see and think he saw it, is that he is against the idea of the government swooping in after death without giving us a choice ad harvesting us for parts to put in other just like a car

 

[freaper]

Here in Belgium you're automatically a donor unless you explicitly state otherwise.

Which is good, since I have two healthy kidneys to give away.

 

[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.

How do you know that?

Sum, Ergo Cogito

 

[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?

Sum, Ergo Cogito

Descartes dealt with reality, not perceived notions of what you can and what you should do. You haven't answered my question. How do you know your perspective is s uperior?

 

[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.

Why exactly shouldn't that be my right?

Because someone passed an arbitrary law?

As far as I'm concerned, my right is to do anything that doesn't harm or hinder another person. The legality of an issue is not something I consider when I think of doing it. Laws should not be the be all and end all of everything.

We change laws for a reason you know. Because over time they become less relevant and more out of place with the way society has changed. Nothing is set in stone, especially not morality.

Let's not go into laws, my man. Even though laws and rights are tangentially related, you are confusing that idea of society versus the individual. Laws don't grant Rights. Laws affirm Rights.

 

[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.

How do you know that?

Sum, Ergo Cogito

Descartes dealt with reality, not perceived notions of what you can and what you should do. You haven't answered my question. How do you know your perspective is s uperior?

Just as I believed, you have no knowledge of epistemology. This is not Descartes' Cogito Ergo Sum (I think therefore I am). This is Nietzsche's version in his book The Gay Science.

It's futile to argue with someone who doesn't know that difference. Good day.

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

We change laws for a reason you know. Because over time they become less relevant and more out of place with the way society has changed. Nothing is set in stone, especially not morality.

So you're suggesting that one day murder will be all fine then...

What about rape?

Stealing?

GBH?

Just because you want to take illegal drugs doesn't mean you can. You can't try and get around it by simply branding it an irellevant law.

Hell, I want to stroll into a bank and walk out again with all the cash, but do you really think the government will ever let me do that?

 

[Macgyvercas]

Please, please proofread your posts. There's a 'Preview' button.

I think it should be mandatory, yes. It's extremely selfish to hang on to something you're no longer using, especially when it could save somebody's life. I carry a donor card, and it's one of the only things I can say I'm proud of.

Exactly this. Where I'm going, I'm not going to need my organs, so I figure why not let them do some good. What really ticks me off is when people refuse to be organ donors, yet fully expect to be given one should they need it.

 

[Shio]

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.

I was referring to your editing out of the insult so as to avoid mod wrath.

Selfish? Nah. I just value my family receiving money for my property.

 

[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.

Why exactly shouldn't that be my right?

Because someone passed an arbitrary law?

As far as I'm concerned, my right is to do anything that doesn't harm or hinder another person. The legality of an issue is not something I consider when I think of doing it. Laws should not be the be all and end all of everything.

We change laws for a reason you know. Because over time they become less relevant and more out of place with the way society has changed. Nothing is set in stone, especially not morality.

Let's not go into laws, my man. Even though laws and rights are tangentially related, you are confusing that idea of society versus the individual. Laws don't grant Rights. Laws affirm Rights.

You seem to have misunderstood my point.

They brought up law. I was pointing out that it wasn't relevant.

I think I got lost with two different arguments I was having with three different people. My bad.

 

[TheAmokz]

Yes. Dead need no heart/lungs/kidneys etc.

 

[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?

Sum, Ergo Cogito

Descartes dealt with reality, not perceived notions of what you can and what you should do. You haven't answered my question. How do you know your perspective is s uperior?

Just as I believed, you have no knowledge of epistemology. This is not Descartes' Cogito Ergo Sum (I think therefore I am). This is Nietzsche's version in his book The Gay Science.

It's futile to argue with someone who doesn't know that difference. Good day.

And it's also futile to argue with someone who uses philosophy to justify their own inhibitions.
You don't seem to actually take epistemology seriously but instead you use it as a way to claim superiority in an argument.

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

I was referring to your editing out of the insult so as to avoid mod wrath.

Selfish? Nah. I just value my family receiving money for my property.

Which one? So many posts I forget when I've typed what.

So you don't value someone else's family not having one of its members die an unecessary death... ok then Mr selfless...

 

[orangecharger]

I can't think of many religions that would say no, but I don't know much about any of them except my own.

However, are you saying that it should be mandatory after death or during life? Call me selfish, but during life I want to keep my organs intact.

and therein lies the rub. Who decides when you are now a helpless case and let's you die so they can save the kid down the hall who is waiting for exactly your liver. I would prefer my caregivers do all they can to save me, and not be concerned about my blood type, and treat me like I am a toy box to raid. We are all human as humans are we capable of making the decision to keep working on this critically injured (maybe not fatally) tatted up motorcyclist versus let him die and take his organs to save 3 or 4 people down the hall.

That's why it should be left up to the family to decide what happens to my organs -- not a piece of paper in my wallet or a doctor that feels like they are doing the "right" thing.

 

[Riff Moonraker]

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?

Oh, if You want to put it this way... sure. It's the same as believing You are a fairy. You are entitled to believe that, or feel about it one way or another. It's just most probably not true.

You cannot have control over something when You are dead, because in order to have control over something, You have to be alive. That's a tautology.

Finding something distasteful is not a very objective argument to base legislature on. Sure, it's still done, but that doesn't mean there won't be attempts to bust such arguments on a forum. Not wanting an opt-out system due to not liking the idea of not having control over Your body when You die, is like... not wanting it due to not liking the idea of the sky being blue. Okay, You don't like the idea, but it's kinda sorta true. You can attempt to control what happens after Your death, but You can never really control it.

So You, personally, can't control it for sure anyway, and You feel strongly enough about it to presumably fill out an opt-out-form should organ donorship become the default state as per legislature of Your country. So there's no logical reason to be against it.

~Sylv

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.

I agree. I feel the same way about how our current administration views the wealthy. If someone has worked hard to become a wealthy individual, there are alot of vocal people these days that believe that they should be taxed to death to provide for the poor. Thats bullshit. Just like its bullshit to try and FORCE me to donate my organs.

 

[Shio]

I was referring to your editing out of the insult so as to avoid mod wrath.

Selfish? Nah. I just value my family receiving money for my property.

Which one? So many posts I forget when I've typed what.

So you don't value someone else's family not having one of its members die an unecessary death... ok then Mr selfless...

I'm sure you have.

That is correct. Me > my family and friends > people I use for living (make my food, create the power that keeps my showers warm, etc., etc. > strangers.

 

[Coraxian]

This is already "mandatory" over here. In de opt-out kind of way.

Then again, if the family insists against it, even if the person never opted out, they won't use the organs. Or so I'm told.

Over here it's described as "presumed consent".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1296026/?page=1
Quite an extended article about it here.