Should organ donation be manditory?
- Thread starter Vault101
- Start date
Recommended Videos
God I love you. Even when I disagree with you, you still provide some awesome arguments.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 agree with you here, though.)
Well here's the thing. Most people think they are normal when they are against organ donation, and all the people tat do are examples of good. In the opt out system,everyone is normal except for those dicks that opted out.
My organs aren't going anywhere, they stay with me in my grand granite mausoleum! AHAHAHA!
My organs aren't going anywhere, they stay with me in my grand granite mausoleum! AHAHAHA!
Sadly, your parents/wife/husband/defacto/children/whoever is legally in charge of your assets when you die gets the final say; even if you say no to organ donation and that's on your licence and in your will, the aforementioned person can chose to give your organs away if they want.bootz said:
Heh. I tryShio said:
(Was a little wary about using that picture, but given that certain charities use FAR worse to promote their "need", I'm feeling justified.)
If we're using an opt-out system, then we're making Societal Constraints stronger than Civil Liberties - which I feel is a mistake made by many past cultures.
Of course not. Yes it's noble to donate them and it could save lives, but the inescapable fact is that the government shouldn't be given the right to harvest people's bodies by default. It's not theirs, period.
Indeed. You're basically saying the government owns your body unless you line up in a cue for an hour and fill out some paperwork saying otherwise.The_root_of_all_evil said:Heh. I tryShio said:
(Was a little wary about using that picture, but given that certain charities use FAR worse to promote their "need", I'm feeling justified.)
If we're using an opt-out system, then we're making Societal Constraints stronger than Civil Liberties - which I feel is a mistake made by many past cultures.
Terrible ideas rarely look as bad as this. Sheesh.
Call me selfish and evil if you will, but I'm kind of opposed to the idea of people ripping my organs out once I've keeled over from whatever freak accident finally takes me down.
There's such a thing as going too far, and I'm pretty sure harvesting every corpse's organs is crossing that line.
There's such a thing as going too far, and I'm pretty sure harvesting every corpse's organs is crossing that line.
Not where I live, the license is the only legal document saying you can be an organ donor. http://www.donatelife-pa.org/Shio said:
I signed up as one and I know my parents disapprove. They can't do anything to change my status unless I lost my license or im under 18. http://www.donatelife-pa.org/getthefacts_faq.asp#16
Not mandatory - but opt out (and with no prejudice against those who do, or reasons needed). With the ability to opt back in later if you wish, but it has to be properly witnessed. Current opt-in schemes like the donor card are not easily verifiable...
Also, you're dead. Rights and the right to choice tends to end at that point. Honouring a dead persons wishes outside of a legally endorsed Will is no more than a matter of courtesy; if foregoing such courtesy is the price of saving the life of someone who, say, has been in a serious accident that wasn't their fault, is it not better to pay said price?
To make an impact on that problem, you're going to have to enact some major societal change (in terms of attitudes, policies and habits) in southeast asia, indian subcontinent, and much of africa and south america. Or maybe just kill yourself, without registering as a donor or spawning any offspring of your own.
Or quit worrying about it, as you'll be dead.
If, for example, said faith is Islam, then the doctors wouldn't have ever so much chance to operate and remove the organs anyway, seeing as the body has to be in the ground by sunset of the following day...
And a medic's duty is to the living, not the dead.
(Yes, throughout this I have assumed that you will be able to withdraw if you wish, because there is NO realistic chance that any developed-world government would be able to impose a donate-by-default scheme without including the ability to withdraw. there'd be riots, with persons such as yourself leading the crowd... also, the OP has ninja'd their first post to clarify that this is also what they meant)
Fair enough if it was mandatory, but I think you missed the "opt out" part. It's not like doing so would be made difficult or secret. It would not be unrealistic to expect that it'd be down to parental choice until the subject reached the age of majority anyway, by which point they would have had plenty of time to decide for themselves what they want to do, and pre-apply so their status changes (or is reinforced) right on their birthday.blind_dead_mcjones said:
Also, you're dead. Rights and the right to choice tends to end at that point. Honouring a dead persons wishes outside of a legally endorsed Will is no more than a matter of courtesy; if foregoing such courtesy is the price of saving the life of someone who, say, has been in a serious accident that wasn't their fault, is it not better to pay said price?
Well, you can try campaigning for a global one-child-per-family thing if you wish, but I don't think it would get you very far. Do you think saving a really very small number of lives (enough that people who can't find donor matches often make the news, individually) is going to have a dramatic impact on population? Particularly in the "west" (or what used to be the "first world"), where birth rates often fall short of death rates, and transplants are more common?
To make an impact on that problem, you're going to have to enact some major societal change (in terms of attitudes, policies and habits) in southeast asia, indian subcontinent, and much of africa and south america. Or maybe just kill yourself, without registering as a donor or spawning any offspring of your own.
I don't remember this being a stated thing. It doesn't happen at random or through some bizarre piece of despotic beaurocracy. Emergency and critical care doctors make the decisions based on who has the greatest need, has been waiting longest, and is the best match for what is available.
No it's not. It would still essentially be voluntary, and an act of charity. Just it would now be one which you're signed up to by default, without having to take the time to and mull over the difficult emotional parts of opting in. If you have no problem with it - which we would hope most people don't - then you need not do anything. If you DO object, then... fill in the opt-out form at the earliest opportunity, make sure your family know you don't want to be messed about with, and carry a "no donor" card.
Or quit worrying about it, as you'll be dead.
Once you're dead, you no longer own anything. Technically, your corpse might belong to your estate, but it's more like it becomes their responsibility (to dispose of, and to divide the former possessions of the departed consciousness that inhabited it) rather than a possession.
Of course it does. Heck, you could modify it to say that if the dead person appears to be of *insert relevant faith* here, you assume they've opted out until it is proven otherwise.
If, for example, said faith is Islam, then the doctors wouldn't have ever so much chance to operate and remove the organs anyway, seeing as the body has to be in the ground by sunset of the following day...
As is not considering every dead body generated in your hospital or ambulances as a potential source of good quality spare parts for the not-quite-dead ones filling the wards. It's just a different person's arbitary opinion. Yours, in this case.
Unless said person died in the act of filling out their opt-out form and/or Will without having either witnessed, that's highly unlikely.
And a medic's duty is to the living, not the dead.
(Yes, throughout this I have assumed that you will be able to withdraw if you wish, because there is NO realistic chance that any developed-world government would be able to impose a donate-by-default scheme without including the ability to withdraw. there'd be riots, with persons such as yourself leading the crowd... also, the OP has ninja'd their first post to clarify that this is also what they meant)
Neither is it Yours when You're dead. That's the whole point.That Hyena Bloke said:
And kind of a silly argument to end with a ", period". It's not theirs, period... in a state where You have to opt in. In a state where You have to opt out... it actually is.
"should we legalize X?" - "NO! Because it's illegal!"
~Sylv
Whoever happen to be their legal guardian. Far more intensive decision than what happen to them after they're dead are left to those.The_root_of_all_evil said:
Or we could reverse the situation, and an accept of being an organ donor wasn't computed, and a virgin mother of eight dies in horrendous pain because the organs she needed wasn't available.
No system is ever perfect, and there will always be someone who gets shafted by that. In this scenario a living person, in your scenario a corpse.
Hell if I know.
...of course, I know it on a more intellectual level; funerals and the bells and whistles associated with them is about getting the relatives of the deceased through the grieving process. But they must of course respect the choice of the deceased - also his/her choice of indifference to the status quo - and it's not like there isn't anything to bury after organ donation anyway.
Because I'm alive and well to utilize it myself as I see (un)fit. Just like any organ donor can do with his/her body.
Neither have every other bureaucracy ever.
Anarchy FTW?
Yes, it should. I've always felt that unless you have a valid reason such as religion or whatever, refusing to donate organs is pure selfishness. You don't need them when you're dead, why shouldn't they go to somebody else? Does anyone have a good reason why not, because if so I'd love to hear it?
I am an organ donor, and proud of it. And to all those saying that you have to fill in stupid amounts of paperwork, that's complete and utter bullshit. When I became a donor it was piss easy, all I had to do was tick a single box and sign on a piece of paper I was already filling out for something else mandatory (NHS FTW! Woot!). A week later my donor card came in the post and it's now safe in my wallet, with me wherever I go. If I was in charge, it would be an opt-out system and you'd have to apply to opt out, and submit a valid reason for doing so (not just "I don't want to be an organ donor" - it would have to be something proper, like a religious reason or medical reason or something). Medical reasons would automatically discount you, though, to be fair - for example, someone with, say, rabies, or someone dying of liver disease or lung cancer or something wouldn't be able to donate organs, due to their medical status...
I am an organ donor, and proud of it. And to all those saying that you have to fill in stupid amounts of paperwork, that's complete and utter bullshit. When I became a donor it was piss easy, all I had to do was tick a single box and sign on a piece of paper I was already filling out for something else mandatory (NHS FTW! Woot!). A week later my donor card came in the post and it's now safe in my wallet, with me wherever I go
. If I was in charge, it would be an opt-out system and you'd have to apply to opt out, and submit a valid reason for doing so (not just "I don't want to be an organ donor" - it would have to be something proper, like a religious reason or medical reason or something). Medical reasons would automatically discount you, though, to be fair - for example, someone with, say, rabies, or someone dying of liver disease or lung cancer or something wouldn't be able to donate organs, due to their medical status...
The sooner you start forcing people to do something the sooner they'll start figuring out ways to stop you. It's the reason we have the current system, you aren't forced into something because you have basic human rights, or at least you have the illusion of human rights.
Being an atheist I personally don't give a crap what happens to my body after my brain stops working. It's nothing but a useless pile of flesh, blood and bones, do whatever you like with it. Although, I don't know what organs of mine will be any use to you, I'm not exactly the healthiest person in the world.
Being an atheist I personally don't give a crap what happens to my body after my brain stops working. It's nothing but a useless pile of flesh, blood and bones, do whatever you like with it. Although, I don't know what organs of mine will be any use to you, I'm not exactly the healthiest person in the world.
I'd look further into that. Here, in Australia, I always assumed my license had the last say, and indeed everything I could find seemed to suggest this was the case, but my father is a nurse and told me otherwise one day. Needless to say I was a little shocked. Apparently nothing can stop the legal owner of your crap (parent or wife etc.) from telling the doctor to harvest you. Legally you get no say what happens to you when you're dead -- buried, cremated, funeral, no funeral, Christian, Catholic and anything else.bootz said:
Maybe your country is different, but I thought like you once.
No. If you're going to take my organs, then you're going to have to pay someone for them. They're expensive, and I don't need the money when I'm dead. I'll sign ownership of my organs to someone who will sell them and make themselves a bit of cash off my dead arse.
I honestly wouldn't mind this. I think I first asked my parents if they'd do this when I was seven-ish as I really loved animals. Dead's dead; I honestly don't see the point in ascribing any soul to what is essentially a lifeless sack of carbon, water, etc. Apart from established tradition, what - when you really think about it - is the point of preserving the 'sanctity' of the dead?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?
Yes, dead bodies used to have an important taboo status as one needed to keep away from them in order to prevent infections and whatnot. Nowadays, however, I just cannot fathom why we would want to maintain these rites surrounding the dead when they no longer serve a purpose.
When I'm dead, I really do want to be cut up into as many useful bits as people can possibly get from me. Even if I did have objections, they wouldn't matter because I'd be dead and it couldn't really bother me any more. I can understand people needing to ascertain their loved one's being dead with their own eyes and the like, but then they're no longer their loved one.
Long story short I don't get why we can't be pragmatic about things like these. It certainly isn't my intention to cause offense, but I am completely serious when I say both 'yes' to opt-out organ donation (I'm sure there are legitimate reasons not to) and 'yes' to tigers eating the useless bits of me, or being turned into mulch, or whatever else might be useful.