Should organ donation be manditory?
- Thread starter Vault101
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Congrats you've stepped in a hospital and therefore know everything about blood shortages.Ramin 123 said:
We can and should be able to freeze excess blood until it is needed, but seeing as this technology isn't needed we just replace the old blood every 5-6 weeks when it goes bad. They are literally collecting more blood than they need because it is cheaper than investing in any technology that would actually preserve what they take. If it ever got to a point in a hospital where we couldn't keep people alive due to a true and catastrophic shortage all it would do is force those idiots in billing that relying on donations is a stupid fucking system.
When a hospital believes that an upcoming event will require more blood they merely tell the media to advertise that a possible shortage could happen if their donations dipped during that time. However, it is much sexier to report on an imminent lack of blood that is going to kill everyones grandmas. Obviously the hospitals don't give a shit that this is an exaggeration because it ensures they have enough blood.
I'm not saying don't give blood. However, the stupid fucking companies -and never forget thats what hospitals are first- are pretty much using you as blood mules because they refuse to invest in technology to actually preserve what they collect.
Source: my sisters a nurse, my dad runs a hospital in Connecticut (granted he doesn't actually have anything to do with blood merely the financial and upkeep parts of it), and a combat medic uncle.
I'd say Hell no... The government and health service should not be able to force anything onto citizens. It should be opt out as default, then you can choose to offer up your organs and if you die before making any choice, you don't get hacked up for salvage.
The_root_of_all_evil said:To all the opt-outs:
London Zoo is looking for some fresh meat to feed their animals and they'd quite like your corpse once the organs have been removed. You'd be helping to feed some animals that will die without your help, so we've decided that if you don't want your corpse fed to the hungry tigers, all you have to do is visit London Zoo once before you die.
That's only fair, isn't it? I mean, you wouldn't want those poor animals to die - and you're not using the rest of your body, are you?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See why appeals to humanity don't work?
I'm okay with this, my plan for my body after I die is donate organs to hospitals and whatever can't be used is instead going to be used as a medical cadaver in schools, and whatever is left over after that gets cremated. I have no use for any of my body once I'm died it can be used to feed animals if that's what is wanted.
I like the opt-out idea, it would still increase the amount of organs and the potential to save lives and people still have a choice, so what if you have to go out of your way to sign an extra piece of paper for that choice if your so lazy that you cant do that then you really don't deserve a choice.
Organ donation should be opt-out... at least in any kind of civilized country that has universal healthcare.
In countries with private healthcare... heck, let's make it mandatory (no opt-out) and watch the hospitals fight over the corpses just for fun.
/S
In countries with private healthcare... heck, let's make it mandatory (no opt-out) and watch the hospitals fight over the corpses just for fun.
/S
Of course, you are correct; we know nothing about death and what happens after.Monoochrom said:
However, we KNOW that there are people alive today who may need the organs of the recently deceased much more than their former owners do.
We can only speculate about whether you need your organs after death, but we KNOW that there are people still living who, as far as we know, definitley need them more than you.
You're really suggesting that we let living people die because we think that the dead MABYE need their organs after death?
Very true, they are my 'selfish wishes'.Monoochrom said:
However, I'm not suggesting that anybody give anything away that they need in life.
After I'm dead, I'd be happy for any of the stuff that was my 'selfish wish' in life to be taken by other people.
Your argument is moot because I am not arguing that ANYBODY should have to give stuff away while they are alive. Merely what, as far as we know, they do not need in death.
I will stay on my high horse, because I'm not asking anybody to give up anything that they will want at the time of it being taken. If you are dead, your organs are no longer required to keep you alive. Therefore, lacking any other information, we can assume that it is entirely possible that they can be given to someone who PROVABLY needs them more than you.
Don't have either, am still a donor.bombadilillo said:
So you do read every form that you fill in and sign. Completely?
40. Never had a driving licence. Never had an ID. Been drinking since *ahem*. Have a donor card. Gave blood once and was banned from doing it again.
GM?nuba km said:
Apart from those unable to - or those guilt-tripped/delayed into not doing so.
I'm pretty sure that their friends wouldn't be too happy using it to hang their coats on though.
Really? Don't you think that's just a little heartless? (irony alert)lord.jeff said:
Think this topic is wearing thin now anyway, so I'll just say that I believe it's better to act upon a call to donate, rather than a duty.
Let's face it - if you're requiring someone to register for their freedom, haven't you already crushed it?
So if I put you in prison and gave you a form to sign which would result in your immediate release, your freedom is crushed?The_root_of_all_evil said:
Crushed.TheEndlessSleep said:
Giving me a way out afterwards is still indebting me, and doesn't breed goodwill.