Should organ donation be manditory?
- Thread starter Vault101
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Sorry but I won't. People will never understand each other until they experience their fears. Only then can they understand each other. I can't imagine someone needing an organ preach the way you do.Hiname said:
Either way, that's irrelevant. An opt out system which prevents you from gaining access to healthcare is perfect. You can preserve your selfish ideas but at the cost of no longer receiving healthcare, the same way you're denying other people a chance to live.
An opt out system would not go against anyones religious beliefs. You have the right to opt out but if you do so you'd be denied healthcare.Hiname said:
Seriously what's with all the communist ideas here? If you don't donate organs you don't get healthcare but, you say living people are more important than dead one, and if dead ones that have opted out dont give you their organs what will you do? take them anyway? That's what good old comrade Stalin would do.
Seriously get off your fucking high horse, it's already been said a few comments ago, instead of antagonizing people try to teach them, preferably with systems that were not developed in communist russia or take your health hostage unless you agree to be gutted like a fish after death, basicaly turning us into waling flesh container for the organs the important people inside this politburo you seem to be trying to create would love to profit from.
Long story short radical ideas are radical because they are usually wild and hard to imply without fucking everything up royally like your obligatory donation, and hostage health care systems would
Seriously get off your fucking high horse, it's already been said a few comments ago, instead of antagonizing people try to teach them, preferably with systems that were not developed in communist russia or take your health hostage unless you agree to be gutted like a fish after death, basicaly turning us into waling flesh container for the organs the important people inside this politburo you seem to be trying to create would love to profit from.
Long story short radical ideas are radical because they are usually wild and hard to imply without fucking everything up royally like your obligatory donation, and hostage health care systems would
Okay, couple of things:
*Concerning the whole "My things, only I get to decide" line of argumentation: It doesn't work like that. It really doesn't. Invalidated by one word: Taxes.
So, we have our precedent. As long as You are in a state which taxes its citizens (aka. pretty much every state), You're already admitting You don't have full control over Your own ressources.
You can argue that You don't want to be taxed, too. It's just that arguments like that tend to be smashed in a more or less serious debate pretty quickly. There are a lot of laws passed over "I don't like it", true, but it's not exactly a desirable state of things - except for people who happen to like or dislike the "right" things.
*Second, Rights. That's a whole bag'o'worms here, because it's difficult to find an universally acceptable definition. They can be conventional, arbitrary, god-given or nonexistant, depending on perspective. But they're not set in stone, as historical precedent proves. One does not even have to go far back to find it, just think Woman Rights, or Slavery in the US.
So what opponents of an opt-out system say is: It is my right to decide what happens with my body after my death, and I want it to stay that ways. Well, we propose to narrow that right down. Why not? We do it in other areas as well. It's not even that we want this right totally gone, which wouldn't even be that unreasonable - just narrow it down. And we back it up with arguments other than "Because we feel that would be great!"
As for another precedent for that - mandatory schooling. Most people agree that the raising of a child is a parent's right, right? But if You arbitrarily decide Your kid doesn't need to go to school - nope. If You decide it's okay to give Your kid some practical sex ed lessons - nope. So there's that.
Ah, but that's a conflict case! MY right to parenting as I see it fit conflicts with my child's right to have an education and not be molested!
...exactly. My right to live trumps Your right not to feel uncomfortable for a while with the thought of Your body being harvested after Your death - or not to have to waste time to fill out a form. I'd say that's reasonable.
*Third, yes, I get it, humans will be viewed as nothing more than a meat bag with spare parts in it! Except, not really. Yes, this MIGHT happen, and that would be a perversion of the rights we propose and a totally different thing altogether. Saying an opt-out system would lead to state-sanctioned murder and body farms is like saying allowing gay people to marry will lead to mandatory anal rape every friday. In other words, does not follow.
Besides, if anything, it would help to reduce the risk of that happening. It's not like spare kidneys would suddenly become a consumption product (new kidney every week!) A good comparison is the abortion debate, though let's drop the question of morality for a while: Legalizing abortion does not mean it suddenly becomes a fad. Abortion is a very complicated, risky procedure, and so are organ transplants, just much more so. No-one really wants to go through it, not even once, so it's not like the demand would suddenly skyrocket. The demand is here, and it's high - it's just the supply that would be equated.
Yes, there might be some cases where people will get careless because the option of abortion exists. Likewise, I don't deny that there is a possibility of some rich guy identifying You as a possible heart donor for his lovely daughter and killing You for that. Except that people inclined to do that and who have the ressources to do it can do it anyway, right now. Because we're not proposing to murder people for body parts, that would still be as illegal as it is now - if not more so.
*And finally, arguments from the individual. I know, it sucks when YOU are the one guy who gets shafted by the new system, but that's the thing about considering new laws and altering existing rights: Someone always suffers. The trick is to minimize the suffering. And an opt-out system is the best thing to do that in this case. We have three groups: People who want to donate, people who are dead against it, and people who don't care. Let's assume that the distribution is equal for a while. Current system, 1/3 of possible ressources can be utilized, and, barring error margins, everyone is happy. New system, 2/3 of possible ressources can be utilized, and everyone is STILL happy - again, not counting error margins. But You always have error margins. Idealism is awesome, and I'm quite an idealist myself at times, but it's just not very practical.
Considering the people in the error margin here are, by definition, dead at the time of harvest, I really think there's the least harm done like that.
~Sylv
*Concerning the whole "My things, only I get to decide" line of argumentation: It doesn't work like that. It really doesn't. Invalidated by one word: Taxes.
So, we have our precedent. As long as You are in a state which taxes its citizens (aka. pretty much every state), You're already admitting You don't have full control over Your own ressources.
You can argue that You don't want to be taxed, too. It's just that arguments like that tend to be smashed in a more or less serious debate pretty quickly. There are a lot of laws passed over "I don't like it", true, but it's not exactly a desirable state of things - except for people who happen to like or dislike the "right" things.
*Second, Rights. That's a whole bag'o'worms here, because it's difficult to find an universally acceptable definition. They can be conventional, arbitrary, god-given or nonexistant, depending on perspective. But they're not set in stone, as historical precedent proves. One does not even have to go far back to find it, just think Woman Rights, or Slavery in the US.
So what opponents of an opt-out system say is: It is my right to decide what happens with my body after my death, and I want it to stay that ways. Well, we propose to narrow that right down. Why not? We do it in other areas as well. It's not even that we want this right totally gone, which wouldn't even be that unreasonable - just narrow it down. And we back it up with arguments other than "Because we feel that would be great!"
As for another precedent for that - mandatory schooling. Most people agree that the raising of a child is a parent's right, right? But if You arbitrarily decide Your kid doesn't need to go to school - nope. If You decide it's okay to give Your kid some practical sex ed lessons - nope. So there's that.
Ah, but that's a conflict case! MY right to parenting as I see it fit conflicts with my child's right to have an education and not be molested!
...exactly. My right to live trumps Your right not to feel uncomfortable for a while with the thought of Your body being harvested after Your death - or not to have to waste time to fill out a form. I'd say that's reasonable.
*Third, yes, I get it, humans will be viewed as nothing more than a meat bag with spare parts in it! Except, not really. Yes, this MIGHT happen, and that would be a perversion of the rights we propose and a totally different thing altogether. Saying an opt-out system would lead to state-sanctioned murder and body farms is like saying allowing gay people to marry will lead to mandatory anal rape every friday. In other words, does not follow.
Besides, if anything, it would help to reduce the risk of that happening. It's not like spare kidneys would suddenly become a consumption product (new kidney every week!) A good comparison is the abortion debate, though let's drop the question of morality for a while: Legalizing abortion does not mean it suddenly becomes a fad. Abortion is a very complicated, risky procedure, and so are organ transplants, just much more so. No-one really wants to go through it, not even once, so it's not like the demand would suddenly skyrocket. The demand is here, and it's high - it's just the supply that would be equated.
Yes, there might be some cases where people will get careless because the option of abortion exists. Likewise, I don't deny that there is a possibility of some rich guy identifying You as a possible heart donor for his lovely daughter and killing You for that. Except that people inclined to do that and who have the ressources to do it can do it anyway, right now. Because we're not proposing to murder people for body parts, that would still be as illegal as it is now - if not more so.
*And finally, arguments from the individual. I know, it sucks when YOU are the one guy who gets shafted by the new system, but that's the thing about considering new laws and altering existing rights: Someone always suffers. The trick is to minimize the suffering. And an opt-out system is the best thing to do that in this case. We have three groups: People who want to donate, people who are dead against it, and people who don't care. Let's assume that the distribution is equal for a while. Current system, 1/3 of possible ressources can be utilized, and, barring error margins, everyone is happy. New system, 2/3 of possible ressources can be utilized, and everyone is STILL happy - again, not counting error margins. But You always have error margins. Idealism is awesome, and I'm quite an idealist myself at times, but it's just not very practical.
Considering the people in the error margin here are, by definition, dead at the time of harvest, I really think there's the least harm done like that.
~Sylv
ohhhh here's another crazy idea you pro obligationists would absolutely love!!! how about in this hypothetical utopia you propose beside not getting health care if you dont agree to be ripped up upon death you also get 25% of your pay docked? that way people will go pro obligation!
See how you've come from you still have to choice to opt out to if you dont give us your organs upon death you cant get health care.
And speaking of rights, im pretty sure (dont know how the law works in the states i study law in spain) that all human beings according to what i know from the constitution (again form spain) have the right to decide what happens to them after they pass, and if they do not choose their family gets that right by default, therefore we DO have rights regarding how our remains are to be treated upon death.
See how you've come from you still have to choice to opt out to if you dont give us your organs upon death you cant get health care.
And speaking of rights, im pretty sure (dont know how the law works in the states i study law in spain) that all human beings according to what i know from the constitution (again form spain) have the right to decide what happens to them after they pass, and if they do not choose their family gets that right by default, therefore we DO have rights regarding how our remains are to be treated upon death.
Non-mandatory and opt-in.
I didn't read all the comments but here was my thought process.
In 1997, I wanted to sign away any and all of my organs (this was slightly before my state started doing that with driver's licenses.). Despite my being 25, it was desired to have two family members witness so I decided to ask my parents to witness it.
Dad was okay with it.
Mom was not. She kinda hit the roof on the whole subject. Dad had to talk her around to it. I believe he convinced her that I was an adult and, as such, I should be allowed to make these decisions.
Fast forward a few years. Mom's brother in Germany needed a kidney. It was a long and drawn-out process to get one (and then to get another). During this multi-year process, my father also died and, being an organ donor himself, had some of his parts reused. (Interesting fact: Sometimes, they only use parts of the eye as opposed to the whole eye. I didn't know they did that.) Both of these events swung my mom around on the issue of donation.
As for my reasoning on why I did it:
I have a number of beliefs on completeness of body, mind, and soul which I won't bore anyone with. However, after I'm dead, my mind is dead and my soul vacates the body. Thusly, it would no longer violate any beliefs for my body to be chopped up. Further, it just seems wasteful to just let my parts rot in the ground if they can be used.
I didn't read all the comments but here was my thought process.
In 1997, I wanted to sign away any and all of my organs (this was slightly before my state started doing that with driver's licenses.). Despite my being 25, it was desired to have two family members witness so I decided to ask my parents to witness it.
Dad was okay with it.
Mom was not. She kinda hit the roof on the whole subject. Dad had to talk her around to it. I believe he convinced her that I was an adult and, as such, I should be allowed to make these decisions.
Fast forward a few years. Mom's brother in Germany needed a kidney. It was a long and drawn-out process to get one (and then to get another). During this multi-year process, my father also died and, being an organ donor himself, had some of his parts reused. (Interesting fact: Sometimes, they only use parts of the eye as opposed to the whole eye. I didn't know they did that.) Both of these events swung my mom around on the issue of donation.
As for my reasoning on why I did it:
I have a number of beliefs on completeness of body, mind, and soul which I won't bore anyone with. However, after I'm dead, my mind is dead and my soul vacates the body. Thusly, it would no longer violate any beliefs for my body to be chopped up. Further, it just seems wasteful to just let my parts rot in the ground if they can be used.
This is nothing but ad hominem.AndyFromMonday said:
I would also like to call attention to some of your previous arguments quite a bit earlier, saying that opting out of organ donation an interference with the wellbeing of others. Though you clearly did not intend it, you've actually formulated a good argument for why the system should be opt-in, because if it were an opt-out system, that argument you made could be used to justify making organ donation mandatory. Only if it were an opt-out system however. It does NOT work in the context of the current opt-in system.
Furthermore, arguing that not donating your organs is "sacrificing" people is, frankly, lunatic logic. "Sacrificing" and "not saving" are two completely different things.
Opt-out, please. I'm already a donor because who really cares? Other people will need organs, my dead body will have some, help yourself.
Did I ever claim that? No, I did not. I'm simply advocating that eye for an eye should be in order here. If you don't donate to help another person then no one should be obligated to help you. If you refuse to give someone a chance to live then no one should give you that chance either.Trasken said:
What your constitution says is irrelevant. Most constitutions nowadays are outdated and do not pertain to modern times which, let's face it, have changed a whole lot. What your constitution says is irrelevant. Constitutions can and will eventually be changed. They're not written in stone and never will be.
I actually made that argument to support a mandatory organ donation for everyone, not opt out.Periodic said:
Also, when did I say not donating would mean sacrificing other people? What I did say is that refusing to donate after you're dead is denying someone their chance to continue living whereas you don't need that change because you're already dead. I'd understand saying that if someone advocated people should be forced to donate their organs at a certain age or something but as it stands, it's just plain immoral and selfish to not be an organ donor. You have the right to do whatever you want with your body as long as you do not infringe on another persons well being. Not donating your organs is infringing on another persons well being.
Ok i don't know what your knowledge of law and the story of constitutions may be, the one i study is no more than 40 years old which in legal terms is not a long time. The change of a constitution is NOT an easy process, to make a long long story short, constitutions are practically written in stone with addendunms being placed in the general law to accomodate modern technology and situations (multiple religions in a country being treated equally, protection from data theft online etc.)AndyFromMonday said:
Your point of an eye for an eye, do we not pay for our healthcare? which entitles us or not to these procedures?
Even in countries where there is health care for everyone you still pay it out of your taxes.
There fore and this is not theory but fact, by paying what we pay for our private coverage or universal healtcare we ARE entitled to these procedures and donations even if we are not pro donation.
I would like to finish by saying that im NOT against voluntary donation i respect them, i myself have a few reservations about donating so i don't sign up, but being forced and coerced into donating IS a violation of our FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL rights which are the most important rights we have
There shouldn't be taxes either. Using one unjust violation of people's rights to justify another is disgusting--and it's become incredibly common.Sylvine said:
If you're interested in ending the organ "shortage", do what has ended every other shortage in the history of mankind: let the free market work. People should be able to sell their organs legally (either before or after they die). If some people want to give them away, they should be allowed to do that, too.
When market prices inform consumption and production, all kinds of opportunities open up. Research gets funded. Methods become more efficient. Profits go up while prices go down. Everyone benefits.
Where people go wrong is in thinking that the free market will look like the BLACK market. But there's a huge difference between the behavior of people who have no options, all of which lead to potential death or jail, and people who have tons of options and want the best that their money can buy.