Should organ donation be manditory?

[Periodic]

Alas, I would personally agree, and I would succumb to such a system. Honestly.

As though you need a system in place to donate your money to charity rather than wasting it on frivolities. Are you also not an organ donor simply because it isn't required of you?

I mean good god. Who the hell would say something so delusional and self-aggrandizing?

 

[Aprilgold]

I don't know why, but if I die, I'd rather have my organs taken from me, without my consent, I'm dead, no reason preventing it. And on the religion thing, I was catholic for a little bit and the big man has no reason to send ya' to hell for this, your helping people out who need it, but there is one reason this shouldn't happen.... As sad as this is, donating even 1 organ is saving one life, so it BEING mandatory means that organs will go over the amount of people, and aids could / would be transferred like that if not checked. The main reason that it should just be a voulenteer thing is because the human race needs a trimming, seriously, thats my issue with it, overpopulation, I don't want to know that I'm pushing more people into the world, causing the overpopulation to increase, dooming my fellow man. I guess for every 10 years they would do it for a year, that way plenty of death and lives being saved, that would work hopefully.

And to point this out I love the idea, but the over population thing scares me.

 

[Mrrrgggrlllrrrg]

An opt-out system would be nice, certainly progressive.


But personally, mandatory would be the way to go. If someones organs are healthy enough to save a life then by the gods it should save a life. Harvest the life prisoners if they meet requirements. Simply put lives are more important than someones feelings about it when they're alive. Not like their feelings matter all too much when they die anyways.

 

[rutger5000]

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).

The existence or non-existence of a ban does NOT in and of itself make for a free market, a condition that has NEVER existed in India. The ban did not *end* these "injustices"--the black market is alive and well in India because what India lacks is a vital component of a free market: impersonal rights-respecting government. (Yes, that's right, you need a proper government for the free market to operate.) And if buying a kidney for $1000 and selling it for $32000 (totally ignoring the ENORMOUS cost of removal, transport, prep, etc that goes into that) is unjust, then how exactly is buying a kidney for NOTHING and selling it for $200,000 (about the going price in the U.S.) a BETTER demonstration of justice? And keep in mind that ALL organs procured in the U.S. are procured by GOVERNMENT agencies (OPO's). That money ain't profit; it barely covers costs.

In fact, due in part to the perpetually cash-strapped state of those OPO's, many, many organs that people would otherwise be happy to see used go unharvested. (It's not cost-effective for a single agency that *has* to cover an entire state to visit every podunk hospital in whereverthehellthisisville. They concentrate on major cities.) On the other hand, with tissue (which is harvested by non-government companies--all SIX of them in the U.S.--and those six sure as heck don't COVER the U.S., their expansion, development and coverage is limited by required not-for-profit status, so they can't reinvest earnings back into the company and expand that way, they have to beg for DONATIONS in order to increase their size and coverage) many products actually experience a market GLUT. The tissue bank I worked for actually threw out a lot of procured fascia (which is used in a number of soft-tissue surgeries) because nobody would buy the stuff; we got in WAY more of it than anyone had any use for. The only thing we were perpetually short of was skin, and this wasn't due to a huge demand for skin, per se, but instead due to the fact that we priced it WELL below what the market would normally support, turning it into a cheap throwaway one-use product for lazy hospitals and doctors looking to conserve their stores of the otherwise vastly-superior (and more expensive) artificial products out there. (Yes, the artificial stuff is actually *superior* to the "real" stuff. It's even better to use the person's own skin, but large-scale skin injuries can make this impossible, and even with smaller-scale stuff it's not always advisable to inflict further injury on the person.) If we hadn't sold at an "EVERYTHING MUST GO!!" price, there wouldn't have been much of a market for it at all.

I could go on and on like this. The distortion of the market for these products by incredibly stupid legislation is literally too absurd to be believed. It amazes me that the "solution" most people propose is to take that situation and MAKE IT WORSE by yet more ill-considered legislation, when getting RID of the whole stupid mess is ultimately the only thing that will "fix" it. Granted, it may not "fix" it in a manner that some people with an agenda would like, but the system will be sanely based on reality instead of the variant whims of legislators, and that's a definite improvement.

And isn't making donation mandatory PRECISELY "harvestation (sic) without consent"? You'd better get yourself straightened out about precisely what you're in favor of, here.

It's immoral to buy or sell organs or any live saving medicine. It creates a divide between the people that can pay to safe their lives and the people that can't. No government should ever cave in to such a pratice and legalize it. Baning the trade for organs is not to prevent it, but because it is simpely wrong to do otherwise. Tax money should pay for organ donation.
A case can be made for a living person selling one of his kidneys. Personally I'm also against that, but I can understand arguments to allow it.
Of course donation should never be made mandatory. It is different to give people the right to op out instead of asking people to op in. Making everyone a organ donor, unless they state otherwise seems like a good idea to me.

 

[rutger5000]

Okay, couple of things:


~Sylv

Wow that is one of the best supports I've ever seen for any opinion. (Yes that makes me sad too). I already had the same opinion as you, but if I hadn't I would have it now.

 

[GeorgW]

I can't really think of why you shouldn't do it, but no, it should definitely not be mandatory.I even have problem with it being opt-out, it feels forced. Your body is your body.

 

[rutger5000]

making organ donation an opt out thing is not plausible. imagine those who forget to sign when they renew their licence, there would be lawsuits from families of people who knew their lost loved ones had their organs taken.

but i don't believe this will be an issue after another 5 or so years. they are already able to create stem cells from adult blood cells, so we will be able to soon create new organs from the persons own D.N.A. reducing the rejection. this would not be a fix for cases where organs are needed immediately, but those who are on waiting lists for years can get replacements that are better suited to their bodies.

science makes life better, just gotta get the ethics and religious views out of the way.

People who don't bother to fill in the form, don't care enough to have the right to decide. It's as simple as that. There should be a nationwide campaign so that everybody knows what's up and opting out should be easy (short internet form, but of course also other possible ways). If these requiments are met, then there is now proper reason why you didn't op out while you don't want to be an organ donor.
I do think htis issue will be relevant for the next few decades. It is not about what science is capable of, but about what people are comfortable science being capable of. If there hadn't been such an outcry about cloning-research, then the technology would have been available (a) decade(s) ago. And public support is likely to stay extremly low for the next few decades.
All we can hope for is that China is going to start a revolution in it, and that the rest of the world will pick up.

 

[Sylvine]

snip

That's an interesting point of view. Though it should be self-explainatory, I would like to point out that I'm not an expert on the subject, so unless I happen to have hard facts on hand, I can't necessarily provide much evidence. That being said:

I can only assume that the cost discrepancy has something to do with different states of economy, or in other words: $32k is worth more over there than in the US. As for the "buying for nothing and selling for $200,000"-problem: You said it Yourself, it barely covers costs, so it's not exactly "buying for nothing". If You bought it for 100k and sold it for 200k, which already barely covers the costs, You'd actually lose money over every transplant. That's not exactly a business plan, is it? And there's only so much costs You can cut as a private agency.

I also am not sure I understood Your argument completely. You seem to believe that everything is potentially profitable as soon as it stops being run by the government? Okay, that's a stance. I don't agree, but I'm no expert on the financial nuances of organ transplantations. But what I don't quite get is this: If many organs already go unharvested, and there is no great market for other parts (You mentioned skin tissue), where's the problem? Opting out instead of opting in does not mean Your body will be picked apart regardless of whether someone actually needs a kidney or not. That wouldn't be, as You say it, very cost-effective.

And isn't making donation mandatory PRECISELY "harvestation (sic) without consent"? You'd better get yourself straightened out about precisely what you're in favor of, here.

Oh, I'm pretty straight, no worries =P

And no, it's not. If it's estabilished as part of a (in this case) democratic, legal procedure, it becomes part of the social contract. Just the same as stealing a twenty from Your wallet is theft, but taxing Your salary is not.

Apologies for the relatively short answer, but I'm pretty tired, the thread's been long and I'm afraid my reading comprehension is slowly going down the drain here anyways.

~Sylv

 

[Giest4life]

Good fucking lord no it should not be mandatory. I already pay three sets of taxes, paying off existing loans for having got a piece of paper from an old institution specializing in abstract thinking (university, if you're dense) so I could get my foot in the door for a job that barely maintains a decent standard of living, and worry enough I won't be killed each way to work by cockknockers texting on their cell mobiles. Not to mention I get hit up hard by advertisements of bald white kids needing kidneys and livers and hearts and shit. About the only thing I haven't done for society is knock up my girlfriend so we can give the master race more tax payers and maintain the status quo and desire to keep the brown people out of the country.

In short, while you can any infinitely amount of "good reasons" to make organ donation mandatory (that is "mandatory", spelt with two "a"s and not an "i"), it is not good to tell people what they have to do, or what they will have to do regardless, after death. There are enough laws telling me what I have to do, and don't provide the wherewithal to skirt around them anyway (like paying my state/federal taxes myself and getting a whole paycheck) that I don't need to be made felt like I'm going to be held in servitude even after death.

Here's an idea - make condemned prisoners donate their shit. Or just prisoners who have hope of release/parole. Evaluate the valid donors, pop them in the head, harvest organs for the white bald kids or over-the-hill wife-beating athletes who don't deserve to live anyway. These prisoners had their time, screwed up - despite bullshit existential arguments for doing what they did. Why punish me, an honest citizen whose never molested a child, never raped another human being, let alone killed one, who is already burdened by taxes that will inevitably be wasted for royal weddings political blowjobs?

Bullshit. That's why.

Now this I support.

Also, you made an account just to post on this topic, didn't you?

EDIT: Congrats for joining though.

 

[Periodic]

Okay, couple of things:


~Sylv

Wow that is one of the best supports I've ever seen for any opinion. (Yes that makes me sad too). I already had the same opinion as you, but if I hadn't I would have it now.

That's an astoundingly pretentious thing to say.

 

[thiosk]

By the time we get over the political and ethical back and forth that making it mandatory would cause, we'll be cloning organs in the lab.

 

[Jake0fTrades]

I think people are way too paranoid about what happens to their organs after death. Clearly, you're not using them, you're not giving them to your kids as inheritance, okay, not giving away organs for religious reasons is one thing, but if you have no good excuse, then why on Earth be so fussy?

 

[Sylvine]

Alas, I would personally agree, and I would succumb to such a system. Honestly.

As though you need a system in place to donate your money to charity rather than wasting it on frivolities. Are you also not an organ donor simply because it isn't required of you?

I mean good god. Who the hell would say something so delusional and self-aggrandizing?

Oh, but it's true. Human nature, You know.

(link repost:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9X68dm92HVI) <- consider watching this, You might be amazed.

I do not have a donor card. I am a perfect example of that third CBF cathegory. I often intend to get myself one, but up 'til now I just didn't manage to get one. And I KNOW there are a LOT of people like me out there. Hell, I interviewed three of my ICQ contacts between the posts, and all three wouldn't mind donating, but only one has a donor card. Fancy that.

As for donating instead of wasting: I'm a student atm, I don't have a lot of money to waste on anything right now in any case. And then, we have the differences in systems. I'd gladly give away the luxuries to help provide others their basic needs; unfortunately, noone will guarantee me mine if I do that. Then there's also the matter of proportion, as I said. I'm proposing a system change here, and I said I would be gladly part of a system like the one described. That means I'd rather not give away half of my cake while the next guy hoards his two million cakes, if You catch my drift. Of course, one copuld argue I'm in no place to make such claims. Fair enough. Ask me again if I ever get wealthy, it's probable I'll argue differently, I'll give You that. But I don't think so.

~Sylv

 

[legopelle]

My thoughts after reading the thread:

Donorship should be practically mandatory (if they're usable - no-one should have to take a defective organ). More realistically I'd have to settle with opt-out, like Spain, Austria and Belgium.

If your choice means the life or death of another person, any political, religious or personal views become moot.

You do not need your internal organs after you die. When your brain is dead, your morality and philosophy are gone. You loose nothing. External organs may be exempted due to psychology of the relatives.

 

[dreddfan]

You want my organs? Fine, pay my living relativs for everything you take. Im not the wellfare and most certainly not after death, either.

How much did you pay for them the first time around?

 

[Hiname]

You want my organs? Fine, pay my living relativs for everything you take. Im not the wellfare and most certainly not after death, either.

How much did you pay for them the first time around?

Well that divine sucker was some badass banter until I got a good price for the whole set, if I remember correctly it went down to a handfull of puppies and a beer after my following death.

Now proove me wrong.

 

[darkfox85]

I'm not sure anyone could in all seriousness support mandatory organ donation. I can see (and even respect) the position, but there's a myriad of eerie reasons against mandatory organ donation, and I think the word "mandatory" is the only reason against needed. This thread should be about the opting-out system.

But I'm honestly stunned that there are so many people who have a problem with it. I see there have been plenty of Straw Men here comparing feeding corpses to London Zoo or giving all your money away whilst dead as being reasonable arguments against opt-out. They are not. And it's particularly satisfying to see Straw Men being built by people who have no idea what Ad Hominem means. That and a strange overbearing feel of a dark interpretation to the vilest tenants of libertarianism.

Communism has also been mentioned. I don't understand how an economic system which feels that the means of production be owned collectively through the apparatus of the state has anything to do with organ donation (mandatory of otherwise.) Is this to do with the lack of democracy (dictatorship) under Communism? Although, with the possible exception of Argentina, all communist states have been dictatorships, not all dictatorships have been communist.

As for the people who won't donate organs on the basis that they don't like humanity: the flatulence of a thousand unwashed, diseased, and constipated hyenas doesn't compare to the foulness and contempt I have towards you. Suddenly I respect your argument.

Regarding the system most of us currently have (opting in) there is a problem in supply. Most people I've asked are perfectly fine with organ donation but haven't legally declared so.

I have a theory on why.

When it comes to ticking that box to affirm that you will donate your organs, an acknowledgement must be made. You must admit your own mortality in considering what happens after you die. I'm not even sure if humans are *capable* of understanding their own mortality. I'd rather not open this can of worms and distract the real issue, but I think this should be glazed upon. So when it comes to opting-in, people put it off. I mean, dying doesn't happen to me. Dying only happens to other people (it's like being wrong.) Of course, this sense of creepiness doesn't affect everyone, but I can't help but feel the opt-out system would alleviate these worries for some of us.

This, and good old fashioned laziness.

So I'm strongly for the opt-out system. If you really don't want to help someone else live on by not doing anything then there will be a very simple box to tick.

But let me throw in something else.

Should I be allowed my way, the default organ donation position for anyone under the age of 18 or suffering from a mental disability preventing the formation of a reasoned opinion is no. No the organs may not be taken on the grounds of not upsetting family and friends. Reasonable? Possible?

But in the name of diplomacy I'll go yet one further.

I'll allow a family member to overrule your decision (in this case, the lack of decision; the decision being not-opting-out) after death. This argument has been hinted at before and yes I can see a few problems already, but this should help cushion the argument. And then your organs can decompose inside that coffin with the freedom and dignity they deserve.

By the way, when you die (*when* you die) an autopsy must be conducted by law to determine your cause of death beyond reasonable doubt. Oh yes. Somewhere out there there's a scalpel with your name carved into it as it will be carved into you.