Should organ donation be manditory?
- Thread starter Vault101
- Start date
Recommended Videos
There is no reason not to donate. you are dead, a rotting carcass and a big waste of material. We need a mandatory donation, definatly. Hospitals get way to little quantities of transplants, while selfish, lazy or superstitious idiots take the life of patients with them to their graves. I you want an opt-out possibility, make the fee for it as high as treating a patient without a liver or kidney for 2 years. Then its ok with me.
fair option 2: only donors get transplants. If you arent willing to safe another human, you arent worth the help of another.
fair option 2: only donors get transplants. If you arent willing to safe another human, you arent worth the help of another.
Because most people don't opt-in through laziness rather than any real desire not to be an organ donor.FamoFunk said:
As the saying goes: 25% of people have agreed to be an organ donor, but only 10% of those have proven they are serious about it and bought a motorcycle.
Those implementations are a little... extreme, but I see the core ideal of no longer needing your organs when you're dead.Fetzenfisch said:
think carefully about what you just said there, how does someone being dead make their rights and wishes any less valid? by that logic why should we bother with wills? or even giving people the option to 'opt out' after all like you said, their dead why should they care, in fact why should we bother with burying the body or even funerals despite them being part of the grieving process? and why should somone whos organs are failing deserve 'a second bite of the cherry' any more than someone who has terminal cancer? and why should that be enforced through the government making arbitrary decisionsGriffolion said:
my argument caters to due process (one of the key structural points of the entire legal process) and your flippant disregard for it fills me with contempt, with mandatory/opt out organ donation there is no due process followed and is essentially playing dictator, do you have any idea how dangerous a precedent that could set? as the saying goes 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'
btw. a change in one word makes all the difference where legislation and legal documents are concerned and wars have been started over less than that, so yeah a change in one word is pretty damn important
No, but spelling lessons should be.
Seriously though, the way I see it, if my organs were working I wouldn't be dead.
Seriously though, the way I see it, if my organs were working I wouldn't be dead.
A person should be able to do what they want with their body as long as it does not impact the well being of others. In death, you no longer have use for your organs and as such making the decision beforehand to not donate your organs impacts the well being of others. Therefore, organ donation should be made mandatory and no person should be able to opt out.
Personally, I'm all for an opt-out system for those who are really against it as no one should be forced too. People don't think about it and the current system has doctors having to ask people at their most vulnerable and grief stricken. It seems kinder to force people to make a choice when everything is fine and they can think clearly.
It does seem strange to me that people would rather let the maggots have their soon to be rotting/cremated body than let it be used to save the life of someone else. I can maybe understand "religious reasons" (even if I disagree), but a lot of the reasons I've seen in this thread seem unnecessarily selfish. I think many would change their minds if they, or someone they care about, were slowly dying for want of a new organ.
It does seem strange to me that people would rather let the maggots have their soon to be rotting/cremated body than let it be used to save the life of someone else. I can maybe understand "religious reasons" (even if I disagree), but a lot of the reasons I've seen in this thread seem unnecessarily selfish. I think many would change their minds if they, or someone they care about, were slowly dying for want of a new organ.
Their parents - or now heirs - will be able to decide for them. Minors have little ability to make legally binding decisions on anything anyway, and the dead none at all. ...But I suppose championing the rights of freedom of choice for the dead, to rip it from the warm living hands of their heirs, is a civil rights niche worth looking into; if nothing else for the lulz.The_root_of_all_evil said:
And there's hardly any problem in regard to freedom of choice in establishing a different point of departure on this issue in the social contract. There are really only three positions to choose from; Yes, no, or indifference, and all an opt-out solution does is placing those who have chosen indifference in another category (which they can always move out of if their choice should change).
It does of course add the small burden to those who want to say no that one time they have to communicate their choice; but that burden now rests on those who want to say yes, which is no more justified.
I think it should be more widely done than it is today, but mandatory...? I think Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, aren't allowed to have such things done. I think. I know they can't receive blood transfusions, or even have someone take a blood sample from them, so I'm not totally sure, but it seems logical to me that it extends to organ donation.
I want to just point out that major organ donation requires that you not be technically dead for it to happen. It is easy to say that you are dead and don't need them anymore but when you think about your family members standing around while you are hooked to a machine still technically alive and they have HOPE that you will wake up I think it is a bit more sobering of a call. I prefer that they be given some time to find out details of the situation, make a decision and come to terms with it. Besides the fact that I have a daughter that I much prefer to be alive for. I am not in a hurry for someone to start yanking my parts out just because a person that is not personally invested in my life decides I have no chance of waking up. Stranger things have happened and I would want every chance to get back to her. Hope is an awful thing to stomp on.
I'm surprised to see that the overpopulation argument is coming up. I sort of feel the same way, but I absolutely do NOT think that killing people, or letting people die, is the best way to solve it. The human lifespan will ensure that in an average of 100 years, all those people will be dead anyway. The solution to that problem is to not have as many children.
Kind of an interesting thought though; what's killing the world isn't drugs, cars (pollution), or even guns, but sex.
Anyway, on topic, I think making it opt-out would be interesting. Just make it so the driver's license application form, instead of a check box saying "I would like to be an organ donor", say "I would NOT like to be an organ donor for religious or personal reasons."
Kind of an interesting thought though; what's killing the world isn't drugs, cars (pollution), or even guns, but sex.
Anyway, on topic, I think making it opt-out would be interesting. Just make it so the driver's license application form, instead of a check box saying "I would like to be an organ donor", say "I would NOT like to be an organ donor for religious or personal reasons."
If you are dead you are dead, you should have to pay a fine WHILE ALIVE that will go to medical charities if you wish to keep your organs after death. Once you die it should be common practice for your organs to be given to someone who needs them. The healthy ones anyway.
I am an organ donor, but I do not think it should be mandatory. It's your body not the property of the government.
What would You care? You'd be dead ;PArctarus said:
I'm torn. I'd personally love it to be opt-out, but the argument against it is very solid. Then again, some of the arguments FOR it are also very solid. Especially in a secular state.
I... kinda don't see why the dead should have rights. I mean, they're dead. Even if there's some life after death, it's not happening here.
And make no mistake. Sanctity of the burial grounds and all that protects the family, not the dead person. Same goes for inheritance laws, postmortem defamation etc.
All this reminds me to finally take care of it. It'd be a shame if I died the next day and all those potentially life-saving organs would go to waste just because I was too lazy to print out a card...
~Sylv
And for orphans? The mentally/phsyically incapable? Those unable to make themselves understood? Certain religions (Jehovah's Witnesses, certain Islamic sects)?Imperator_DK said:
"Oh I'm sorry sir, we don't seem to have a record of your opting out. Cut him open Bob."
Seriously, didn't the Live Organ Transplant sketch register as what could happen?
Again, if you're no longer using your body, why should we even need graveyards? Just use the bits to revitalise the Human Race? Stem Cell Research could easily cure Cancer and AIDS; Abortion? Why bother getting upset about it?
Put it simply, why shouldn't you donate all of your excess money to helping the poor? Unless you opt out, of course. And the bureaucracy responsible have never made mistakes on that count, have they?
(For the record, I've opted in. I even tried to give blood, but I've been banned as it's to dangerous for me.)
Sorry but when it comes to someone living or dying, due process is either a good thing or a bad thing, it depends what side of the fence you're sitting on. You can hide behind the argument of legality etc forever, but the fact that any argument that chooses to move beyond and concept of human made legality (which in itself is arbitrary down to the core) "fills you with contempt" makes me wonder as to the validity of your whole thought process. I am accepting your arguments and coming back with my own thoughts. And besides, if your argument for the concept of 'due process' doesn't fall under the saying you gave about good intentions, what exactly is it then if it is not a good intention? Fact is, that line can be used against ANYTHING.blind_dead_mcjones said:
Oh and as far as dictator is concerned, hardly so. The system (or due process maybe) I was hypothetically proposing a way in which people still have 100% full control of their organs where they can state who/where they want them to go to (if at all). But for those who don't care either way and haven't bothered to make a decisive ruling on their intentions may be considered for donation to someone who really needs it.
Oh and you challenging why any one human being should get another 'bite at the cherry' when the opportunity is available simply by virtue of another set of people ill with someone not help able by the same method they could be helped by has just caused me to disregard the majority of your premise. Simple answer, it's life, and therefore should be treasured and kept everywhere it is. Many cancer patients sometimes require a new organ, they're just as in need as anyone else. Just because there are illnesses not curable by transplantation does not warrant the termination of the use of transplantation to help those who are ill and CAN be helped by transplantation. But yeah, not to bring Godwin's Law into effect here, but who's the "dictator" now?