Should organ donation be manditory?

[CplDustov]

But with an opt out system, people still have choice. They have the choice to... opt out.

The only thing that switching from opt in to opt out will mean is that the people who don't care about the issue will donate their organs automatically rather than not, meaning that we get more donations overall.

If you are so against it you can just op out, that's the point.

Absoloutely nobody's free will is being breached at all.

Thank you, agree. The self-contradiction was becoming too much.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

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.

Sure you are, as long as you are a donor. If you refuse to become one you are exempt from paying for your healthcare which would mean a slight decrease in your taxes. You are entitled to any procedure the doctor sees fit as long as the guy waiting for an organ is entitled to his procedure.

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

Yes, it's as violation of your right to be selfish. By Zeus how could I have been so foolish to believe that after death your perfectly good organs should be harvested to help keep others alive rather than leave them to rot in a grave. Would you be more comfortable with the idea if everyone told you your organs wouldn't be harvested but the moment you'd die we'd totally do? Do we really need to do this in a society where you're supposed to care for your fellow man rather than succumb to selfishness?

Constitutions are not written in stone, no matter what any government would like you to think. Constitutional laws and rights are often broken or loopholes are used to get around them. Ignoring this, a constitution can be changed at any moment but doing it "officially" means going through a lot of red tape and other bullshit. Doing it violently seems to work fine though.

It's not like constitutional rights are given to us by some sort of all powerful deity. They're made by people, the same people who inhabit the world right now. They're subject to change and can be changed or simply removed as quickly as they were made.

 

[Sylvine]

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.

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.

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.

Whether taxation is just or unjust is a debate for itself.

But if You are looking for a model where the free market decides, look no further than India, which actually banned free organ trade a few years back after having had it for a long time due to pretty gross exploitations of people (buying kidneys for $1000, selling for $32000, for example. Or harvestation without consent during operations to sell them off later).

Unfortunately, "FREE MARKET!" is not the miracle cure for every problem.

~Sylv

 

[Tyr2440]

Theres alot of benefits for organ donation and id have thought more would accept to it. Id like to say the benefits outway the potential upset for mandatory carving up of a loved one so little timmy might have a liver there are those who dont believe in it.

Id like to put forward that theres alot of parts of a person some would not like to loose , either through personal choice or religious obligtion and that they should be made to sign on the organ transplant list and select a minimum of 2 organs. Me personally would not like to have my brain or eyes used for medical uses for personal reasons but i would happy give other organs (including my heavily abused liver) fot the hope of someone who would need it and would benefit their lives.

Iv seen many arguements for and against and respect a great many but id like to think you cant put a price on a human life and in all fairness towards all ways of thinking , we all end up ash or worm food but wouldent it be amazing to know in your death your potentially giving lives back.

Cheers , James

 

[NellNell]

If your not going to need them, then I see absolutely no reason to keep them. Its as people have said above, selfish.

That being said a opt-out would be better then forcing everyone to do it.

 

[Periodic]

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.

I actually made that argument to support a mandatory organ donation for everyone, not opt out.

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.

Not donating your organs is no more infringing on another person's well-being than not donating your money, or any other worldly possessions to charity is infringing on another person's well-being. The life and death stakes don't matter since we're basing this off the simplistic, catch all philosophy of "you have the right to do whatever you want so long as it doesn't infringe on the well-being of others", plenty of people probably need your stuff more than your family.

The point is, that to say "refusing to donate your organs infringes on people's well-being" is to assume that even while you are still alive, you are in co-ownership of your body with the government. If you are allowed to decide what to do with your possessions after you die, you should be allowed to decide what to do with your body after you die.

Your interpretation of what "infringement" consists of is very vague and could be used to justify a great deal of things. You are trying to come up with a neat, tidy, irrefutable train of logic to support your argument, when the subject is NOT that clean-cut.

 

[Matt-the-twat]

Yes, it should be an opt out system.

 

[Sylvine]

Not donating your organs is no more infringing on another person's well-being than not donating your money, or any other worldly possessions to charity is infringing on another person's well-being.

Okay, I'm a bit tired of this one.

Can You tell me how, exactly, are You going to NOT donate Your money or any other worldly possessions?

Because unless You make an effort to liquidate them all and spend all Your money right before You die, someone's gonna inherit. Which is, technically speaking, a donation.

Edit: Again, the opt-out system does not disallow You to decide what happens to You after You die. You can opt out. You can make a will. But just as there are no laws that say Your worldly posessions should be burried or burned with Your corpse in case of an accident and no testament, why should that be the case for organs? For a long time, they were not a commodity. They are now, though. A very precious one.

~Sylv

 

[The Man With the Soap]

It's not a donation if you are required to give it up.

It should be SOP, though.

 

[MagnetoHydroDynamics]

Already gonna donate my brain to science. I need to get myself a donors card.

 

[Trasken]

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.

Sure you are, as long as you are a donor. If you refuse to become one you are exempt from paying for your healthcare which would mean a slight decrease in your taxes. You are entitled to any procedure the doctor sees fit as long as the guy waiting for an organ is entitled to his procedure.

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

Yes, it's as violation of your right to be selfish. By Zeus how could I have been so foolish to believe that after death your perfectly good organs should be harvested to help keep others alive rather than leave them to rot in a grave. Would you be more comfortable with the idea if everyone told you your organs wouldn't be harvested but the moment you'd die we'd totally do? Do we really need to do this in a society where you're supposed to care for your fellow man rather than succumb to selfishness?

Constitutions are not written in stone, no matter what any government would like you to think. Constitutional laws and rights are often broken or loopholes are used to get around them. Ignoring this, a constitution can be changed at any moment but doing it "officially" means going through a lot of red tape and other bullshit. Doing it violently seems to work fine though.

It's not like constitutional rights are given to us by some sort of all powerful deity. They're made by people, the same people who inhabit the world right now. They're subject to change and can be changed or simply removed as quickly as they were made.

So if im not a donor i cannot pay for private care like they do in America?

You seem to have an idea that constitutions come and go like the wind, that is not true and the fact that you think that violently establishing a constitution is necessary in this day and age is worrying but whatever it's your opinion.

Now its a violation of my constitutional right not to be selfish but to decide what happens to my remains, why is it so wrong to NOT care for strangers?

Ok new example albeit a tad exagerated but i think fits the situation more or less.
You are the only person in your town with bone marrow compatible to that of a patient that needs it withing 24 hours or will die, it will take 72 hours to find another donor.
You don't know this person at all but the doctors approach you and ask you if you would be willing to do the donation even if there is a 60% chance you0ll be paralyzed from the waist down.
Would you take such a risk for a stranger?

Let's say you're well off, not rich but doing better than most.
A complete stranger asks you give him 10000$ to pay for the heart operation his little girl needs to live. And for the sake of the argument you are the only one able to give him this money. Would you do it?

How woul you feel if you were told you had to give the man your marrow and risk paralyzation because you didn't fill out the paperwork to say you dont want to do it to the proper authorities?
How would you feel if you had to give the man the 10000$

It's easy to take the moral high ground, but it's more realistic to take the pragmatic route and care for your own and your own only as is natural.

 

[Tyr2440]

the opt out system would work , but there should be perhaps education towards the benefits and the lives changes and the CHOICE to be made mandatory

 

[Wintermoot]

I think they should check for medical history before they harvast maybe the person has cancer that spread.
other then that religious is a reason somebody might not want to do it but I agree if your dead you obviously don,t need it anymore.

 

[emeraldrafael]

I would say no, because there are a lot of diseased people around (an I get it, tests being done and all, but stuff slips through), and some people dont for religious reasons.

besides, some people dont like the idea of someone taking a family member's organs, wanting to keep it in them in case they (the person who doesnt like the idea) needs it.

 

[Vrach]

I believe it should yeah, no reason not to. Sadly won't see it happen any time soon thanks to religion.

 

[Periodic]

Not donating your organs is no more infringing on another person's well-being than not donating your money, or any other worldly possessions to charity is infringing on another person's well-being.

Okay, I'm a bit tired of this one.

Can You tell me how, exactly, are You going to NOT donate Your money or any other worldly possessions?

Because unless You make an effort to liquidate them all and spend all Your money right before You die, someone's gonna inherit. Which is, technically speaking, a donation.

~Sylv

Yes and you decide who you wish to inherit your money, and you can choose somebody who doesn't need it as much as somebody else. I am arguing that it is nothing but a matter of degree. If you are infringing somebody's well-being by not donating organs, then are you not infringing somebody's well-being by not donating all your money to the people who need it most? If the government should have control of your body upon your death, then why not all your assets too? Surely it could make better use of them.

 

[Trasken]

I would also like to point out that the argument that by not donating we are violating someones right to being healthy, while a ridicolous claim, cannot be claimed either because we cannot be held responsible for indirect damage a person may or may not receive when we make use of our right to choosing how we are treated upon death, when there is doubt the court tends to settle in favor of the one who may indirectly harm someone since allowing the potential injured to win would make it so that everyone could somehow claim a potential damage for any situation

 

[Aris Khandr]

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.

I'm not infringing on anyone's well being, because no one else has any right to my body. To state otherwise is to say that I'm infringing on someone's well being because I have $5 in my pocket that I don't need, and I'm not choosing to use it to buy someone a sandwich.

 

[Sylvine]

All those examples, Trasken, have one definite flaw:

As a potential organ donor in what we are discussing, YOU.ARE.DEAD. There's no risk of losing ANYTHING. Because You are DEAD.

All those examples, Trasken, have one definite flaw:

As a potential organ donor in what we are discussing, YOU.ARE.DEAD. There's no risk of losing ANYTHING. Because You are DEAD.

Yes and you decide who you wish to inherit your money, and you can choose somebody who doesn't need it as much as somebody else. I am arguing that it is nothing but a matter of degree. If you are infringing somebody's well-being by not donating organs, then are you not infringing somebody's well-being by not donating all your money to the people who need it most? If the government should have control of your body upon your death, then why not all your assets too? Surely it could make better use of them.

That's a debatable position, however, not really subject of the debate. A definite difference: Someone always inherits. If You don't donate organs, though, they just go to waste.

I don't think anyone would argue against, say, deciding that, given the choice, Your organs should go to Your family first. But the facts are different, it's not even that Your family doesn't need it, it can't even USE it. If You estabilish in Your will and testament that Your body shall be cremated and he ashes given to Your family, well, that's a waste, but at least in the opt-out system, You are allowed to do that. The system just prevents You to, figuratively, set fire to a commodity that could save lives. AFTER You're dead and can gain nothing from it. And, here's the best part, without even really wanting to do it. That's not just wasteful, that's criminally stupid.

~Sylv

 

[Trasken]

All those examples, Trasken, have one definite flaw:

As a potential organ donor in what we are discussing, YOU.ARE.DEAD. There's no risk of losing ANYTHING. Because You are DEAD.

~Sylv

I will concede they may be exaggerated, but the first one is a possibility in your opt out system, after all your marrow will not be completely taken away it will slowly regenerate but it is still something that is subject to donation like organs, with your opt out system i might be elgally obligated to donate my marrow undergoing the risky operation. See how a lawyer can argue that because your donation is obligatory you have to undergo that operation because you dind't opt out? Best case scenario you pay the family of the deceased for not donating your marrow in concept of grief and loss (direct translation from spanish dont know the technical english term) Worst case you have to undergo the operation.