Should organ donation be manditory?

[Sylvine]

those who dont opt in will opt out so the numbers wont change, unless you know some lazy person dont opt out

...or in. I still haven't.

And there are many people who just didn't give it any thought, and probably won't until they're one day decapitated by their case-modded toaster. We'll have to assume. If we assume they were against it, some people die. If we assume they were for it, some people live. That's a pretty easy choice if You ask me.

~Sylv

 

[Giest4life]

Hell fucking no. Not even a fucking opt-out thing. It's not that I don't want to donate my organs or whatever, it's the idea that I won't have control over them when I die. If I knew they were gonna take my organs without my permission, In my dying moments I'd probably set fire to myself or something. Seriously, I'm abhorrent to the idea of organ donation.

 

[NezumiiroKitsune]

You should ethically be willing to give up after death whatever you'd be willing to recieve in a hospital from someone else.

On that basis, every one of my organs after death are available for reuse if they can do it. If my eyes can give someone back the ability to see their children or explore the wonders of culture anew, I can think of few things that make me happier. If they can transplant my entire face to give someone back their ability to live a life free of predjudice because of disfigurment, and by that give them a measure of their humanity back, I'm happy to do so. If my heart can give a elderly women another half a decade to spend with her grandchildren, I'm honoured to be able to have been a part of that.

So many relatively small yet unfathomably significant and incredible things can be achieved by this act of charity and sacrifice. Moments in an ocean of pitiless time that will consume all life through entropy and for the majority of it's existance not know that we ever were, that anything ever was. We have such a short period of time to excerise our ability to celebrate life, the universe's single most elegant and awe inspiring accident.

OT: No it shouldn't be, but everyone who can should sign up willingly if they're willing to take the organs they so dearly want to keep hold of, often for an asinine principle. If you think it conflicts with your religious beliefs, speak with your faith's local "leader" and see what he or she thinks on that matter. Besides Rasta, I can't think of a faith that doesn't support it. Of course, you may prefer to interpret your religious texts yourself and make an informed personal decision, and if you have the time and dedication to do so, good for you.

 

[Dr Jones]

No fucking way. f y'all think that then donating money to the poor should be mandatory. A kidney takes 10 years from your life, and makes it harder for you to piss, and limits the amount of times you can get drunk.

 

[Sylvine]

Hell fucking no. Not even a fucking opt-out thing. It's not that I don't want to donate my organs or whatever, it's the idea that I won't have control over them when I die.

Wow, You really typed that?

You'll be dead. You won't have control of it anyways. You only have the illusion of having some.

If anything, it'd be beneficial for people like Yourself. With an opt-out scheme, they'd better damn well make sure people who opted out don't get "accidentally" harvested, since that'd bound to be a huge scandal - much, much bigger if some shady practicioner harvested some default non-donor today.

~Sylv

 

[Giest4life]

Hell fucking no. Not even a fucking opt-out thing. It's not that I don't want to donate my organs or whatever, it's the idea that I won't have control over them when I die.

Wow, You really typed that?

You'll be dead. You won't have control of it anyways. You only have the illusion of having some.

If anything, it'd be beneficial for people like Yourself. With an opt-out scheme, they'd better damn well make sure people who opted out don't get "accidentally" harvested, since that'd bound to be a huge scandal - much, much bigger if some shady practicioner harvested some default non-donor today.

~Sylv

Sorry, your "reasons" are your own. I find it inherently distasteful that a government will have control over my body by default.

Who are you to decide how I should fell about my body, dead or otherwise?

 

[Ris]

An opt-out system would be preferable; those with genuine concerns or beliefs should have the freedom of choice to say no.

I think a lot of people's attitude to organ donation is that they'd like to do it, but never seem to get around to registering. Quite a few of my friends/family have commented before on how "I should really get myself one of those.." whenever they see a glimpse of my donor card, but I still seem to be the only one that actually has one :/

 

[Pearwood]

Yes. There's no reason not to other than medical problems which would be the exception. If you have religious or personal beliefs that this is wrong then I'd still say too bad for the same reason I'd not excuse murder that was motivated by religion. People die waiting for organ transplants, refusing to donate your organs could very well kill someone.

Who are you to decide how I should fell about my body, dead or otherwise?

It can either decay in the ground, be burnt or save lives, which of those options is preferable? Either way it's destroyed in some way, choosing to have it destroyed in a wasteful way rather than a useful way just means your last act on earth could be being responsible for the death of another.

 

[Amphoteric]

It shouldn't be mandatory but it should be expected.

 

[Gigano]

No fucking way. f y'all think that then donating money to the poor should be mandatory. A kidney takes 10 years from your life, and makes it harder for you to piss, and limits the amount of times you can get drunk.

I think the discussion is on post-mortem organ donation, i.e. generally organs taken from people who've suffered irreversible braindeath.

 

[mooncalf]

I recall a TED talk titled "Are we in control of our decisions?" at one point discusses the prevalence of organ donation in Europe and it seems a clever approach to this question.
I am absolutely AGAINST mandatory donation, but I am completely happy for people to be tricked into useful action.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9X68dm92HVI

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

...
And for orphans? The mentally/phsyically incapable? Those unable to make themselves understood? Certain religions (Jehovah's Witnesses, certain Islamic sects)?

Whoever happen to be their legal guardian. Far more intensive decision than what happen to them after they're dead are left to those.

It's far easier, safer and less traumatic for someone unable to speak to opt in through selfishness than opt-out through terror.

"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?

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.

Problem with that. My sufferer is singular, your saviour could be anyone.
Also, are you saying that a virgin mother of eight
1) Is more important
2) Can be saved pain from the transplant
3) Can be saved from death purely through one transplant
4) Isn't incredibly likely to die on the operating table anyway? There's no way she could take an anesthetic in that condition.

You're bordering on Ad Hominem/Ad Absurdum there. Be careful.

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.

Again, you've just decided for everyone that a living person always takes priority over a corpse. Not cool.

...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.

And the choice of the deceased would be in opting in. Opting out forces a choice. A choice some of us cannot make.

Put it simply, why shouldn't you donate all of your excess money to helping the poor? Unless you opt out, of course.

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.

And you can still do that. As long as you opt out. And there's no guilt involved in opting out, is there?

And the bureaucracy responsible have never made mistakes on that count, have they?

Neither have every other bureaucracy ever.

Anarchy FTW?

Ad Absurdum. Anarchy couldn't even allow donation.

What's worse for your family?
1) Seeing your organs removed against your will.
2) Seeing your organs kept with the body against your will.

Your entire argument of "Living Bodies have more rights than Corpses" ignores the rights of all those who view the Corpse as the resting point of someone they loved.

There are numerous other ways that "opting out" would be the more efficient way to run the world, but you're not only painting the Organ Collectors as Angels, and the Organ Keepers as Devils - but you're also requiring the people most needing of Organs to make the final decision.

Here's a scenario: Your virgin mother of eight is about to die.

On the ward you have three people who have been in a coma since mandatory registration. They've never opted out. Each of them has a heart that could save this woman.

All it takes is you to pull that plug and you could save her.


(Hell's teeth - Hit word Limit - Second post coming)

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Equally, look at Euthanasia.

There is no way to opt-in to Euthanasia at the moment, apart from states like Oregon.

Let's say I'm dying of a terminal disease. (For this scenarios sake, my epilepsy has got to the point where it's tripping me out for longer each time, and leaves me in great pain.)

Now, I want to donate my organs to your Virgin Mother. The heart's probably fucked, but the kidneys are still going.

I can't call for my own death, despite opting in. But the mere fact I have opted in allows for people to interpret my last wishes and move me to Oregon where I can die and release my organs.

With the opt-out procedure, no Doctor knows if I've simply forgotten, or wasn't able to register before the mandatory point locked in.

 

[Luthir Fontaine]

Take them ill be dead why would i give a shit what happens to them, hell you can prop me up outside to scary crows = pretty much how i feel

 

[Sylvine]

Sorry, your "reasons" are your own. I find it inherently distasteful that a government will have control over my body by default.

Who are you to decide how I should fell about my body, dead or otherwise?

Oh, if You want to put it this way... sure. It's the same as believing You are a fairy. You are entitled to believe that, or feel about it one way or another. It's just most probably not true.

You cannot have control over something when You are dead, because in order to have control over something, You have to be alive. That's a tautology.

Finding something distasteful is not a very objective argument to base legislature on. Sure, it's still done, but that doesn't mean there won't be attempts to bust such arguments on a forum. Not wanting an opt-out system due to not liking the idea of not having control over Your body when You die, is like... not wanting it due to not liking the idea of the sky being blue. Okay, You don't like the idea, but it's kinda sorta true. You can attempt to control what happens after Your death, but You can never really control it.

So You, personally, can't control it for sure anyway, and You feel strongly enough about it to presumably fill out an opt-out-form should organ donorship become the default state as per legislature of Your country. So there's no logical reason to be against it.

~Sylv

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

But with an opt out system, people still have choice. They have the choice to... opt out.

The only thing that switching from opt in to opt out will mean is that the people who don't care about the issue will donate their organs automatically rather than not, meaning that we get more donations overall.

If you are so against it you can just op out, that's the point.

Absoloutely nobody's free will is being breached at all.

thats not choice, thats being presumptuous

to assume the authority to make decisions for another in the absence of them opting in is the ultimate in arrogance

You literally can't argue that an opt out system is not choice http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opt-out

Also, I'm not making decisions for anyone; the people themselves are making the decision to opt in by the very act of not opting out.

Its not like this would be a secret that the Government wouldn't tell people about; if someone wants to do something about it, they can.

But why should people have to opt-out if they never wanted to opt-in in the first place?

Because something this generalised can never hope to satisfy everyone.

At least they can actually get out of it if they want to, I'm not forcing anyone to do anything that they don't want to do.

You cannot have control over something when You are dead, because in order to have control over something, You have to be alive. That's a tautology.

I agree with you totally on the issue, however, its not a tautology.

To be alive and to control something are not one and the same.

 

[Abengoshis]

When you die there's three options for your organs:
- a) Go into a muddy ditch and rot.
- b) Go into an incinerator and get burned.
- c) Go into another person and give them a better, longer life.

(Yes, I used biased language. No, I do not care).

People who object to giving their organs are idiots. They are holding on to something they won't use and that people need.

Organ donation should be mandatory. If their is an opt-out their organs should still be taken, just in secret. :3

 

[y1fella]

Hell no I'd rather have all my organs removed loaded into a trebuchet and flung at a freshly painted white wall, the red splatter marks hopefully making what could be interpreted as modern art, then give them to someone in need. I'm dead anyway why not be an asshole? (rhetoric)

 

[Grimbold]

Opt-In: not enough donators.
Opt-out: somehow creepy.
I would say on your 16th birthday a mandatory clown should come to your house, give you an organ-shaped cake and ask you if you want to donate or not. So it would be ensured that everyone gets his will. And cake. And the socio-economic benefits that arise from the increasing number of donators outweigh the costs for clowns&cakes.