Should organ donation be manditory?

[Gigano]

...

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

A decision they would never get to make anyway, as only their legal guardian is empowered to act on their behalf.

Problem with that. My sufferer is singular, your saviour could be anyone.

How could a individual which have chosen that its organs should be used to save people, and whose choice gets shafted be considered any less "singular" than an individual who have chosen that its corpse is to retain its organs, and whose choice gets shafted?

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.

She might not be saved through just one transplant (although some are), but she may well die from lack of one.

And what condition?

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

I doubt there is need to question that many people have been saved though transplant of organs they had dire need for.

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

Whereas you have decided that as a point of departure, the opposite is to be the case with the choice of an opt-in solution.

So yes, we want differing social contracts (or rather social contracts which both center around the individual choice, but with different results if that choice is passivity), and must argue for them. Very cool.

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

The mere knowledge of the opt-in solution also forces a choice, and clearly specifies the consequences of not being able to make it. Only difference is what those who choose passivity will end up with, and at the end they might just as well regret not being donors as they would being so.

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

None at all.

Ad Absurdum. Anarchy couldn't even allow donation.

Hence the need for a bureaucracy, and the inability to hold its inherent imperfection against it.

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.

Depends on the family.

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.

No more so than the opt-in solution can already do, and it's ultimately still the choice of embracing organ donation - or the choice of remaining passive in the face of it - made by their loved one itself which would deny them a whole corpse to mourn.

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.

Or giving them the opportunity to make a decision in the first place.

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.

If they haven't died, then they aren't donor material.

I doubt any doctor would make himself a murderer even to save another patient. And if he would, it has no relation to the opt-in/opt-out discussion, as he'd then go ahead anyway.

 

[team star pug]

From a Government view, They don't need them, and they can a person a longer life so they will work more. Communism on your organs I say!

 

[bombadilillo]

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.

None of those arguements fit for opt out. And they are all just rambling.

 

[Jodah]

I wouldn't save most people while I'm alive, why would I do so once I'm dead.

 

[Yechezkel]

Everyone in this thread realises that organ harvesting occurs while the person from whom the harvesting is being done is still alive, correct? While organs from the stiffs that are still warm can be used, the quality thereof is much easier to assure when harvesting from the merely brain-dead or victims of CDJS--Can't Do Jack Syndrome. So strictly speaking, you are still using them.

 

[Korak the Mad]

I do believe that people should donate their organs, especially from the deceased. The reason is that if someone dies and has a perfectly working organ that someone can use, give it to the person that needs it, the dead person isn't using it anymore.

Yet, there are things that can come with the donated organ, what I'm talking about is cellular memory. That is when certain personality traits of the donor seem to tag along with organ. Usually changes in taste or style, but sometimes changes in attitude or ideas and even change in the personality of the person who recieved the organ.

There are some people who believe that a certain part of them stays behind if they die and their organs are donated. Frankly, it would be kind of cool if someone suddenly started to think the way I do if they recieved one of my organs.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Everyone in this thread realises that organ harvesting occurs while the person from whom the harvesting is being done is still alive, correct? While organs from the stiffs that are still warm can be used, the quality thereof is much easier to assure when harvesting from the merely brain-dead or victims of CDJS--Can't Do Jack Syndrome. So strictly speaking, you are still using them.

Being brain dead is no different than body wide organ failure.

 

[Capcom4ever]

No

 

[Zac Smith]

Defiantly not, they are my organs. If I chose to donate that's my decision. I don't know if it's true, but I do like the idea of filters, i.e. choosing that that lungs for example won't go to a smoker, or liver to alcoholic

 

[Yuno Gasai]

The way I see it is that when I'm dead, I'm not exactly going to have much use for my body.. So why not at least attempt to help someone live a little longer?

interesting, if the option to give is taken away...it is no longer really a 'donation' but a tax

I rather prefer the liberty to donate to a charity then having something forcibly taken from me, alive or dead.

The above is pretty much why I believe it shouldn't be mandatory.

 

[Setsuri21]

No, because one: Humanity could use a bit of a trimming every now and again.

two: That takes away one's freedom of choice.

three: If the person has some kind of blood disease (aids, ect.) the recipient may get it if the organ is left unchecked.

Four: (more of a personal thing) I don't want to have my organs used to revive some douchebag who is just going to make the world worse. If they're a good person that's okay, but what would I know? I'd be dead.

You don't want to donate your organs because you've judged that some people are worth less than you and don't deserve them? That's harsh, dude.
OT, Yeah, I think an opt-out would be better. I think a lot of people would be willing to give when giving was the standard.

A life is precious, and a death, of the mind or body, is tragic, but a body is just meat.

 

[LarenzoAOG]

I don't see why not, you're not using them when you're dead. But I can see why some people wouldn't like it, as it involves your body being cut open and your organs removed post mordem.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

A decision they would never get to make anyway, as only their legal guardian is empowered to act on their behalf.

Wow...now they don't even have a choice?

Problem with that. My sufferer is singular, your saviour could be anyone.

How could a individual which have chosen that its organs should be used to save people, and whose choice gets shafted be considered any less "singular" than an individual who have chosen that its corpse is to retain its organs, and whose choice gets shafted?

Simple. Your mother can be saved by a replacement organ from a donator. My non-donator gets shafted simply by need (which still may fail)

She might not be saved through just one transplant (although some are), but she may well die from lack of one.

Not answered whether she is more important yet. And these are still may's, which imply may not's.

And what condition?

Being a Virgin Mother of Eight. I assume you picked that label for a reason.

I doubt there is need to question that many people have been saved though transplant of organs they had dire need for.

But that's no need to condemn non-donators for manslaughter, is it?

Whereas you have decided that as a point of departure, the opposite is to be the case with the choice of an opt-in solution.

No. I have decided that it's a choice for the individual to make. Again, calling non-donators equivalent to manslaughter is an unfair and unjust accusation.

and at the end they might just as well regret not being donors as they would being so.

How can you regret when dead?

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

None at all.

Apart from you've just possibly killed someone...as you've already stated.

Depends on the family.

So giving the family/individual choice is a good thing?

Or giving the opportunity to make a decision in the first place.

Which already exists.

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.

If they haven't died, then they aren't donor material.

Ok, a fourth coma patient has just died. He opted out before going into the coma. He has a heart that could save this woman, and no legal guardian.

What exactly would your legal backlash be if a Doctor took his heart and used it to save your mother's life? Would there be one?

Because if there isn't, what weight does the entire opt-out system hold?

 

[AndyFromMonday]

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.

1. It infringes on absolutely no rights as any rights you had in life end with your death. It's in fact immoral and unethical to not donate your organs as you're basically denying an individual the right to live just so you can pertain to your selfishness.

2. 6 billion actually and that's irrelevant. Overpopulation usually occurs in developing countries and even so you have no right to decide whether a person lives or dies. If we go even deeper we discover that the person who's actually getting the organs could eventually become a productive member of society whereas a brain dead person would never recover.

3. Because the person who's brain dead no longer needs those organs. Because selfishness is not an excuse to deny someone a chance to continue living.

4. No it's not. You'd be dead. At the same time, those organs could go to actually helping people rather than wither away for absolutely no reason at all.

5. No, it's not. When you're dead it no longer is your body, is it, since if you're dead you no longer have any sense of self and therefore no way to enforce your so called "rights". You own your body for as long as your brain is functioning.

6. Fuck that. We should not sacrifice people just so someone can pertain to their own sense of religiousness.

7. It's arbitrary to be selfish.

8. I don't make assumptions. I don't care what you believed when you were considered alive. As it stands, you're dead. Your beliefs, ideas and goals no longer matter. What does matter is that you have something that could give someone a second chance and I'm not about to let people die just so others can pertain to their own bullshit religion/philosophy. This is similar to Jehova's Witnesses refusing transfusions but still expecting to be treated properly.

 

[John the Gamer]

I'm a donor. Took me, like, 30 seconds to fill out the form the government tosses at your face when you turn 18 here. Then my mom threw it in the mailbox when she went shopping.

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

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.

Ok, so you obviously didn't see that I'm one of those people who doesn't care what happens to my body when I'm dead. Take it, I'm not coming there to opt out because there's no point.
I will be dead; I will experience none of what my body will be going through once you have it.

Ok, now that you understand my argument, perhaps you'd care to justify yours; why are you not happy with your body being used for a good cause once you're dead?

 

[iphonerose]

As being a donor myself, I think it definitely shoul be mandatory unless someone specifically opted out. It's easy for anyone to stand on their moral high horse saying dead people still have rights blah blah, but coming from a family who has been in need of an organ transplant, I really think it's quite selfish for people not to donate their organs after they die. And for those of you who are actually stating that they believe it shouldn't be mandatory, I would just ask the the question if your father, mother, brother or sister was on a waiting list for two years for an organ which they desperately needed but could not get, would you still go for the 'civil liberty' choice over saving their lives. furthermore as for the religious argument..surely those who actually believe in an after life understand that it would be their so called 'spirit' which goes to this afterlife, there is noo debating te fact that the physical body (including organs) stays in the ground?

 

[Yechezkel]

Being brain dead is no different than body wide organ failure.

...uh. No. That's not even remotely close to correct. Even if it was, and I can't stress enough that it isn't, what about the people whom medical science cannot save but still may have months or years left in their lives? By the time they begin the final process of dying, it's very often too late to harvest their organs. Are you saying these people should be legally forced to give up their last days for the sake of someone they will never meet?

It would behove the people of this thread to not look upon vivisection with such black-and-white candour.

 

[iphonerose]

Whoops, captcha errors made me double post. Sorry

 

[Philip Petrunak]

It should be opt-out, not opt-in. That's my view on the subject. If you honestly care enough about what happens to your body when you're dead to not want to save another person's life, you can at least have the decency to fill out a form saying so.

That said, I do believe that emergency contacts should have the power to refuse as well, such as spouses, parents, children, partners, and friends.