Should organ donation be manditory?

[Connor Lonske]

I would contribute my brain for scientific study, but that isn't going to happen so no.

 

[Damura]

In an ideal world, yes, it should be. I don't understand why some selfish bastard needs to hang onto his organs whilst he is being incinerated or is six foot underground whilst there are thousands and thousands of people dying every day because there is an organ shortage. What a waste of a life.

Interestingly, a lot of their arguments boil down to this:

"no longer in anyone's possession"

You can't have them.
Family can't have them.
Government can have them.

Fuck you.

Which proves my point.

However, life isn't an ideal world so I'd be fine with just making organ donation the default option and you have to sign a form if you don't want them. Anyone who has ever worked in a hospital would vouch for this.

My point is that it's your body. You make the choice. No one else has the right. No family wants a body taken against their will, have bits of it torn out and then get handed back the left overs.

In an ideal world everyone gets to make their choice.

Also, I have offered my organs for when I die... but I don't think that anyone - especially the government - can force people to do it. Fuck that.

Also, you can't make it opt-out. You shouldn't have to go out of your way to declare your own body yours. This also means that in the event that a person doesn't officially specify their desire for their own body that choice is taken away from their family and stolen by the government.

 

[chimeracreator]

"no longer in anyone's possession"

You can't have them.
Family can't have them.
Government can have them.

Fuck you.

Try and stop them, you're dead. You can't defend your body anymore or take part in any social contracts to do so, so why should anyone care if your organs get pulled out and placed into someone who can take part in society? Remember the "asshole" defense works both ways. You may not want to share them after death, but we don't need to respect your wishes either because organ donation supporters can be assholes too.

 

[Some_weirdGuy]

I'm perplexed why so many people on here are against it when it would have an opt out system.

If you're so serious about being a prick and wanting your organs to rot in the ground instead of saving lives, then you simply opt out.

If you're to lazy to opt out then clearly you don't care enough about what happens to your organs after you die that having them donated would be an issue.

You sure as hell arent using them, your family isn't using them, though if your family is that concerned(when you weren't by having not opted out) they can decide to have all your organs placed in their own bodies, otherwise they go to someone who needs them.

Sounds fair.

And in the case where the deceased is under age, then clearly their parent/guardian would make the decision for them, like with everything...

 

[Klarinette]

Nah, bro.
I'm going to agree with many posts that I've seen and say that it should be an opt-out thing. Mind you, I do have my donor card filled out (brother has first dibs on my pancreas, if he can have it).

Captcha: "arimasen hiscum"
...oh... I see.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I'm perplexed why so many people on here are against it when it would have an opt out system.

Let?s look at estate law in this regard. Do I have to check off a box in a form and file it to the government in order to not have my estate taken upon my death and given only to the government? No? Then why must we do it here? I admit, it is not the same, as your organs go nowhere, but that is beside the point.

The point is that I would only be in support of an opt-out if all it involved was filling out a form that would take less than five minutes. Or that people could write in their wills what they wanted, and that would trump all. But that won?t happen.

Again, I want my organs taken upon my death if they can be of use. My religion supports that idea, and I think God will be cool with it. But it bothers my father, so he has stated that he wants to be buried upon his death. And I will respect that, and make sure it is done that way.

 

[Kyoufuu]

I think it should be opt-out, and you should not be allowed to attach conditions to it. You can't say person X gets it, because before long rich people would pay organ donors to be person X, and what message does that give? The life of an upper-class person is more important to protect than the life of a middle- or lower-class person? Perhaps you could specify members of your immediate family only, any more lax restrictions than that and it would be abused.

 

[Murray Kitson]

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.

cuz china is the first place considering cloning anything... no actually Japan is in the lead here. and don't give science that much credit. there is no way cloning could be done years ago when they have only made it possible recently, and the cycle of the clone with animals creates a newborn.

and about the short internet form, the problem is getting the information out there. did you know that the average american doesn't watch the news. mass email is not practical because the internet is an entire society spanning many nations and collecting the necessary info on email addresses is illegal. besides, i doubt anyone reads every piece of spam crap they get in their inbox. same goes with mass snail mail. do you read everything that comes in? if you do, then you are one of few.

no, your ideas are terrible

 

[TheHardcase]

Frankly, I'd prefer it if the people I love (and love me in return) gave me some insight as to how they'd want me to deal with this kind of thing. If I die, and they're alive, I'm gone - they have to deal with it. That's my body, yes, but they're the ones that are going to have a funeral, they're the ones that are going to bury me (or cremate me). I have no strong feelings to one side or the other... I'd be okay with my friends and family deciding that their best way of dealing with the grief would be knowing my remains are doing some good, just as I'd be okay with them deciding that they want me to stay whole.

Why? Because I care more about the emotional state of my loved ones than dying strangers. Total honesty. I just do. That's why they're loved ones.

That said, the idea of mandatory organ donation is stupid and counter to everything I like about the Western world. This is a choice we're allowed to make. Are you allowed to disagree with people's choice to keep their bodies whole? Hell yeah. Just like they're allowed to say you're destroying your body and that's an abomination or whatever.

A dying person has the RIGHT to claim the organs of someone who died a little earlier than them?

 

[Shio]

Personally, I don't see it as forcing. You're giving people the same choice that they have now, you're simply changing the way you choose.

You're forcing them to have to opt-out.

And the other way around you're forcing people to have to opt in.

The choice is still there for both either way, I don't see how forcing one group of people is any worse than forcing another.

Because choosing to donate something (money, time, organs - whatever) is always a choice. You don't make people donate their money until they decide not to.

Your being silly.

No one is taking organs away from people that are alive. And if a person dies and they have no one to pass their money onto or haven't said they want it to go to charity etc. The government takes it.

How is having to opt out any worse than having to opt in?

The distinction doesn't make sense.

Except for the fact that having to opt out would save thousands of lives per year.

The distinction does make sense. Forcing people to have to opt out because you see donating by default as good isn't enough of a reason.

 

[Sylvine]

Do I have to check off a box in a form and file it to the government in order to not have my estate taken upon my death and given only to the government? No? Then why must we do it here? I admit, it is not the same, as your organs go nowhere, but that is beside the point.

It's not beside the point. It's the quintessence of the point. Transplantable organs are not only a ressource, they're a vital one in the most direct meaning possible. Why should they be wasted per default?

Noone would ever dream of setting Your estate on fire upon Your death unless specified otherwise. At the very least, You'd expect it to naturally go to Your relatives. Why? It's a convention. There's no inherent logic to it, except that it's better - clearly - than declaring it free-for-all or destroying it altogether. It's a convention that works very well, no doubt, and had some time to estabilish itself...

But so does the presumed consent system, at least in the few countries in Europe which use it - Spain, Belgium, France, Norway, Austria and Italy, if my sources are correct. And according to my knowledge, donation objections from the next of kin are usually not overruled in spite of having that system in place.

Not to mention the whole "given to the government" phrase really gives off the wrong vibe. It's not like "the government" is eating them, or using them as target practice. The organs are given to people who need them to survive. Not granting them the chance for treatment is like denying them Medication because it makes You feel comfortable thinking about it (or even worse, "just because").

~Sylv

 

[bombadilillo]

You do it when you get a drivers liscence/id and you fill out the form.

Don't have either.

Check this box if you want to opt-out.

Just like the EULA which you read every time, of course?

A system where everyone is magicly a donor unless you go down to city hall and fill out a form is not a good system imo.

Totally agree. And is what I've been trying to argue.

If you dont have one you wouldnt be a donor. Since most of the population get one its why the donor issue is already attached to it.

And how are you too blind to see that a form in a box you just throw away, or click past is different then a form you HAVE TO FILL OUT AND SIGN.

Are you too young to have a license/id? Cause when your 21 I bet you want to get one, even if you don't drive. (Or drinkin age in your applicable country)

 

[Nickompoop]

This is why I'm an organ donor. And it's why you should be one, too.

 

[XxSummonerxX]

I have several problems with my organs, as such I'm not allowed to donate, but if I could, I would.

I would say that you can only opt out for religious reasons. Other than that, no, it is mandatory.

 

[-Samurai-]

Screw that. My organs are mine unless I say otherwise, and no living being has the right to say that they're only mine if I sign a form. I was born with them I'll die with them, and they'll be cremated or buried with me.

 

[BrownGaijin]

The major religions have no problems with it, and I've lost relatives because of a lack of donors, nevertheless I still don't think someone should be forced to donate their organs.

 

[Namkrow]

No, organ donation should not be mandatory, if it were mandatory postmortem than it would be implying that the government owns your body once you die and can do with it what it pleases. As to the opt-in/opt-out scenario, I'm going with opt-in. Sharing is a choice, and shouldn't be automatically assumed.

Personally, I feel that if we view the world from an opt-out vantage then it's like someone coming into your home and taking your stuff when your not around simply because you didn't say they couldn't.

 

[bombadilillo]

No, organ donation should not be mandatory, if it were mandatory postmortem than it would be implying that the government owns your body once you die and can do with it what it pleases. As to the opt-in/opt-out scenario, I'm going with opt-in. Sharing is a choice, and shouldn't be automatically assumed.

Opt out does not have to be assumed.

 

[Raeil]

After reading the posts on this page and pages 1 and 2 (I'm not reading 14 pages of this stuff just to express a simple opinion), I'm going to say that I agree that Organ Donation should be opt-out. However, I would like to make an exception for this opt-out program. Humans under the age of 18 are not able to donate organs after death unless their parents have opted them in. I make this distinction based on my morals and also the differences in legal rights of children vs. legal rights of adults. Some children do need organs donated from children, but some part of me (which I will have to explore in order to determine why I have this moral) does not like the idea of automatically having children be organ donors without their knowledge or their parent's knowledge.