Should organ donation be manditory?

[The_root_of_all_evil]

It's just that in an opt-out system, 'can't be arsed' is, as a choice, beneficial to your fellow man.

Because, as we've seen with Euthanasia, opting-out can be curtailed or even ignored.

Opting in, however, is much harder to curtail.

 

[fer-]

what scares me the most are the people in this thread that seem to honestly think they know better and should be allowed to make decisions for everyone else

please never hold public office because we have enough elitist people in office that think they know better and try to make decisions for people hiding behind rhetoric like 'its for the common good' or 'people are idiots we need to do this despite them'

if you honestly think that _you_ know better about what to do with my body (or money) then _I_ do you scare the hell out of me!

 

[bombadilillo]

Not mandatory, but whould be opt-out vs opt-in. Should boost the number of donaters nicely.

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

Snip

Hey, if you want the government to own your body until you inform them otherwise, go ahead. I however don't.

And to use someone else's metaphor:

"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?"

That's cool, yeah? You can opt out if you want. Just go to London Zoo.

Hmm? What's that? You don't want to? Our views on what is right and what is wrong are different? You don't think you should have to go to the Zoo to tell them not to feed your remains to the lions? Interesting how an opt-out system is fine when it's your opt-out system.

You're just presuming that he will not like the idea of being eaten by lions because you don't...

This metaphor is no different to the issue. If somebody thinks that people shouldn't care what happens to them when they are dead, then suggesting that something horrific will happen to their DEAD body will not phase such a person.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

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?

You have the right to do whatever you want with your body as long as it does not inteerfer with the well being of others. Refusing to donate after death interfers with the well being of other. Your right to freedom of expression and speech does not cover that.

 

[A Curious Fellow]

Where's the poll?

OT: yes.

 

[PettingZOOPONY]

No, there are plenty of bums and runaways to use for parts, and kids that want Ipad 2.

 

[WittyName]

I am in no way against organ donation, and am currently is the process of signing up for it.

However, I don't believe that it should be an opt-out or mandatory system.
Personally, I'd like to think I'd made the choice myself to volunteer to help someone after I die.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I agree I don't understand how everyone is not an organ donor!

 

[y1fella]

Own a more serious note I still wouldn't agree. I honestly think the idea of mandatory organ harvest is disgusting. Doesn't natural selection say something along the lines of "Survival of the Fittest" not survival of the weakest because the fit but unfortunate have there organs torn out and given to them so thy can spread there weakness until eventually humanity is reduced to a species of shriveled vampire like monsters relentlessly hunting to down and slaughtering the few remaining fit. Fighting over there still beating heart to see who gets to live for a few more precious years... I sought of stopped being serious there.

 

[Woodsey]

I thourght mabye unless said otherwise, you should mabye have your organs donated?

honestly I cant imagine many reasons NOT to do it...perhaps religious or what ever

No it should not be mandatory. There are many religious and personal reasons not to donate your organs.

Seems kind of un-religious to be so selfish.

I don't care if someone needs them. That's not my problem.

Does that make you religious then? I'm so confused!

That is IMO some kind of Socialist idea, next thing everyone will be paid the same salary so no one is poor, and no one will be able to own a piece of technology unless everyone else can have it.
I personally dont want to be forced to donate unless i go through all the paperwork to say i don't want to be forced to donate.
The system we have now is perfectly fine, you're and altruist who wants to give his organs to someone after he dies? good for you go fill up the paperwork but don't force me to do it just because it's the "right" thing to do, remember the "right" thing isn't always the best thing

The system we have now is not perfectly fine. People are stuck on huge waiting lists whilst they wait for organs, whilst perfectly useful organs are buried in the ground, because people are too fucking selfish to let go of them after they're dead.

What, pray tell, do you need your organs for when you are dead? "Not the best thing", my arse.

You look at this thread, and its the same old thing: "blah blah blah, state control." YOU ARE SAVING OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES.

The state's involvement, at most, is as the intermediary. Its not like the PM sits on a fucking throne of harvested organs whilst laughing manically into his little "Socialist" hands.

 

[Nazz3]

Not that I have any problems with donating my organs, I dont think something like that should be mandatory. Its your body after all

 

[Shio]

If somebody thinks that people shouldn't care what happens to them when they are dead, then suggesting that something horrific will happen to their DEAD body will not phase such a person.

Cool. So I now have the rights to your body. If you want to opt out, come see me in Australia. If not, upon death your body is mine.

That's the exact same situation you are proposing be forced upon me. I'm not down with that. You might be. Good for you. Have fun. I aint.

 

[MrA]

It would definitely be a problem for religion :/ I personally don't think it should be mandatory, as much as I can see it being selfish, I just don't want someone else touching my organs, even in death, I just want to stay in one piece

 

[mcnally86]

"No way I don't want my organs touching some sick guys."
~Bart Simpson

 

[satoru]

An Opt-Out system would work much better. Make it as part of your drivers license or voter registration. To those who object, what's wrong with an opt-out system? If you feel THAT strongly about it, you can opt out. If you can't be bothered to read or care, then why should people suffer because of your own ignorance? If you have religious reasons, that's fine, opt out. No one is 'forcing' you to, and the benefits are huge for the vast amount of people who need access to donor organs.

I think it should be contingent on getting some kind of service, such as a drivers license, ID card, voter registration, etc. I realize you're not going to get everyone this way, and inevitably you'll have a contingent of people that will essentially 'opt-out' because they don't have any of the above. I think that provides a good balance between a 'general' opt-out' policy, which is contentious because some people are not going to be notified for various reasons. So it's not a 'forced organ harvesting program'!!! Simply that those people who get some kind of service must 'opt-out' of organ donorship. This way those who 'don't care' will donate, and those who are against it for various reasons can address it.

 

[Kyoufuu]

no, nor should it be opt out either for several reasons

1: it infringes on individual rights, personal choice and is unethical
2: there are far too many people on the planet at any rate (7 billion and rising)
3: why should someone who's specific organs are shutting down be more deserving of a second chance than anyone else who is terminally ill? and why should that be through taking someone elses organs?
4: the double standard/hypocrisy involved, as its essentially state sponsored and enforced grave robbing/organ trafficking
5: even if i am dead it's still my body and i want it to be treated with dignity, taking another persons property without their permission (regardless of whether they're living or deceased) is a crime, theft to be precise, and if we don't own our body what do we own?
6: makes no allowance for peoples religious or philosophical beliefs regarding maintaining the integrity of the body
7: is just plain arbitrary
8: it is never wise to make assumptions on someones part in regards to their final wishes that they may have not communicated prior to their demise, benefit of the doubt is key

No, it really isn't. It's about saving lives.

 

[jowo96]

I'm assuiming you mean post mortem organ donation, I'm not giving some alcoholic my kidney while I'm still using it.

But yes, I think that people should be on the donor list by default. People will no doubt feel that they are entitled to be able to choose to be a donor rather than it to be a presuposition that they do want to be but, what people believe they are entitled to and what is for the greater good rarely match up.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

No, it really isn't. It's about saving lives.

That's half the problem. It's not about saving lives. It's about having extra materials that could be used to save lives.

There's a big difference. What you're doing is switching the default position of Humanity from
I wish to choose if I am to be used for spare parts to
I will allow my body to be used as spare parts unless I say otherwise.

It should be the individual's right to work for society, rather than society's right to require payback from the individual.

Would the donating non-smokers want their lungs to be given to smokers after death?