NationStates Jolt Archive

So, just wondering everyone's opinion on organ donation and whether or not it should be compulsory.

I know a lot of people would scream "NO! They're my organs! They'll be buried with me, damnit!"

Ok, so that's fine - for those people, how about just switching the system to what they have in some places in Europe? (I'm in the US by the way). In the US, we have an opt-in system - you have to register if you want your organs donated (plus they ask your family and all that). In some places in Europe, they have an opt-out system - basically, you have to register to *not* be an organ donor. Would you be agreeable to that type of system?

I couldnt give a damn what happens to my body after I die, but I understand some religious folks do.

Religious freedom trumps in this case, however irrational it is. More importantly, it would be a mistake for the government to compel us (even by opt-out) to donate organs, even after death.

In Sweden we have an opt-in system, I really don't know why, usually the government takes far less notice to individual rights than the USgovernment. I think should be an opt-out, many people die here without having cared about the question, it is so unnecessary. Such a system would force peole to think about the qustion, I can't see what's wrong with that.

I don't care what they do with me when I'm dead. For those who really don't want to donate they can opt out. This would make organs more available because nobody who feels the way I do has to take an extra step to donate, and those who really don't want to can make their voice heard.

I couldnt give a damn what happens to my body after I die, but I understand some religious folks do.

Religious freedom trumps in this case, however irrational it is. More importantly, it would be a mistake for the government to compel us (even by opt-out) to donate organs, even after death.

Yup. Their bodies, their rights.

People who'd rather have their body organs rot in a coffin with them instead of being used to save lives are selfish even by my own standards.

Compulsory? Well, it's not like I have a choice in the matter anyway. Once I'm dead, I'll have exactly 0 ability to care what happens with my organs. Of course, religious people and their superstitions think they do. Silly religious people.

Opt out for the reasons already specified. People who really don't care won't mind anyway, and the people who really do care will be able to opt out completely. I don't really see how ANYONE could oppose an opt-out system.

Compulsory donation isn't an option, because it imposes on peoples freedom of religion. Many religions believe that cutting the body after death defiles it, and their families shouldn't have to suffer through that while they're still trying to come to grips with the loss of a loved one. Besides, the entire basis of the belief in compusory donation requires you to believe that the body becomes the property of the state after death. Unless you live in a totalitarian communist nation, the property of the deceased typically becomes the property of the estate after death, to be divvied up between interested parties. In other words, the body belongs to the family.

The problem with opt-out, and why it is nearly as bad as compulsory...


With opt-out, it assumes that the government owns your body after death unless you indicate otherwise. With opt-out, you have to go through a special hassle just to ensure that your body goes to your family, and not to the government. The baseline should be that the government in no way owns your body after death unless you expressly gave it permission.

That said, it is selfish to hold on to your organs after death, but that's the great thing about freedom, the freedom to be selfish.

The problem with opt-out, and why it is nearly as bad as compulsory...


With opt-out, it assumes that the government owns your body after death unless you indicate otherwise. With opt-out, you have to go through a special hassle just to ensure that your body goes to your family, and not to the government. The baseline should be that the government in no way owns your body after death unless you expressly gave it permission.

It doesn't assume that the state owns the body - the non-organ parts of the body still go to the family. The opt-out system assumes that anyone who didn't take the time to go say they didn't want to give their organs did.

Its kind of like, say - the draft. There are ways to get out of it (ie. consciencious (not spelled right, I know) objectors). However, you have to fill out paperwork if you want to say that you aren't eligible. Otherwise, you are.

Or, say - medical care. You can choose to say that you don't want certain forms of medical care. But if you haven't taken the time to fill out the paperwork, the doctors assume that they should do whatever they can in order to keep your body breathing.

If a person doesn't want to donate his/her organs, then he/she shouldn't be forced to.

Do I think that's sick? Of course I do. But I'm against most things that force people to do things.

It doesn't assume that the state owns the body - the non-organ parts of the body still go to the family. The opt-out system assumes that anyone who didn't take the time to go say they didn't want to give their organs did.

Its kind of like, say - the draft. There are ways to get out of it (ie. consciencious (not spelled right, I know) objectors). However, you have to fill out paperwork if you want to say that you aren't eligible. Otherwise, you are.

Or, say - medical care. You can choose to say that you don't want certain forms of medical care. But if you haven't taken the time to fill out the paperwork, the doctors assume that they should do whatever they can in order to keep your body breathing.

Parts of the body, the whole body, what does it matter?

It still means that if you don't do anything, the state owns your parts. You can't force that kind of thing. It has to be an opt in system to work in the US, at the least.

My concern with mandatory donation is will they actually wait until you die (a natural death) to come after your organs? Or will they take advantage of someone in an emergency room situation because someone they think is more important needs a new liver, heart, etc. There have already been horror stories (rumors, to be accurate) of organ harvesting in Mexico. And don't tell me our Govt. (USA) isn't above these things. Somehow Mickey Mantle got a liver in short order when his failed (never mind he destroyed his original from massive alcoholism), and they knew he was dying of cancer anyway. But since he was "a national icon" he got priority over someone else. Fix the system before you demand me to give up parts of my body.

My concern with mandatory donation is will they actually wait until you die (a natural death) to come after your organs? Or will they take advantage of someone in an emergency room situation because someone they think is more important needs a new liver, heart, etc. There have already been horror stories (rumors, to be accurate) of organ harvesting in Mexico. And don't tell me our Govt. (USA) isn't above these things. Somehow Mickey Mantle got a liver in short order when his failed (never mind he destroyed his original from massive alcoholism), and they knew he was dying of cancer anyway. But since he was "a national icon" he got priority over someone else. Fix the system before you demand me to give up parts of my body.

I don't really support mandatory organ donation - I think it is going too far. But I think an opt-out system would be good.

As for them coming after your organs before you die, it is unlikely in a 1st world country - and other coutries with opt-out programs haven't had any problems.

Compulsory organ donation doesnt "force" anyone to do anything. In fact, if I recall, dying and having someone remove your organ requires absolutely ZERO effort on your behalf.

It doesnt really step on your freedom, since you'll be dead. Dead people have no rights. If they did maybe no one would object to them voting at every election, would they?

Organ "donation" is a misnomer. The "donating" family has to pay for the harvesting of the organs and the receiving family has to pay for the transplant. So by "donating" you are opening your family up to a rather large medical bill after you are gone. Thats why I am not a "donor" any more.

Organ "donation" is a misnomer. The "donating" family has to pay for the harvesting of the organs and the receiving family has to pay for the transplant. So by "donating" you are opening your family up to a rather large medical bill after you are gone. Thats why I am not a "donor" any more.

This is really only true if you have no health insurance, since they would be the ones actually picking up the tab. And among those in the indigent care area, I doubt that organ donation (or not) is a very big issue, since they have bigger things to worry about.

let me start by saying that i "opted in" on the organ donation thing on my drivers license.

the suggestion that i OWE anyone my, or my deceased family member's, organs bothers me. the GIFT of ones organs is a great thing, the compulsion to be cut up after death is just wrong. the state does not OWN my body, even after my death

so, im my opinion, we should leave the US system the way it is. relatively few deaths make a person eligible for organ donation anyway, we should just concentrate on asking the family for permission.

and if you are in favor of donating your organs, TALK TO YOUR FAMILY. they are the ones who will make the final decision. if they know for sure its what you want, they are much more likely to follow your wishes.

This is really only true if you have no health insurance, since they would be the ones actually picking up the tab. And among those in the indigent care area, I doubt that organ donation (or not) is a very big issue, since they have bigger things to worry about.

That is IF your policy covers such a thing. Many don't because you are already dead....

That's the opting whatever. I'm talking mandatory. No one needs to "ok" it in that case.

My concern with mandatory donation is will they actually wait until you die (a natural death) to come after your organs? Or will they take advantage of someone in an emergency room situation because someone they think is more important needs a new liver, heart, etc. There have already been horror stories (rumors, to be accurate) of organ harvesting in Mexico. And don't tell me our Govt. (USA) isn't above these things. Somehow Mickey Mantle got a liver in short order when his failed (never mind he destroyed his original from massive alcoholism), and they knew he was dying of cancer anyway. But since he was "a national icon" he got priority over someone else. Fix the system before you demand me to give up parts of my body.

Well one thing doctors do if they know someones an organ donar is if someone was very heart in an accident and being kept alive on life support they could advise the family that the victim will never be the same and probably wont make a full recovery and that they have the option of pulling the plug and will ask that they donate the organs of the person.

If they really wanted more organs in the system they should have a program in place where you could sell yours and the money goes to next of kin. If you were going to get a grand or 2 for your kidney or liver when you died more people would check the little box on the back of there license.

as for my opinion on the matter: everything thats in my body is staying in my body.

Compulsory organ donation doesnt "force" anyone to do anything. In fact, if I recall, dying and having someone remove your organ requires absolutely ZERO effort on your behalf.

It doesnt really step on your freedom, since you'll be dead. Dead people have no rights. If they did maybe no one would object to them voting at every election, would they?

Sure it does. It forces those with religious beliefs involving death to have to okay it with the government before they keep what is already theirs.

That goes against what is covered in the 1st amendment, in the US, last I checked.

Frankly I think the religious people should spend their efforts sticking up for the rights of the living, not the dead. Especially since most religions have an element of selfless giving of oneself to help others, anyway. At least, in theory.

let me start by saying that i "opted in" on the organ donation thing on my drivers license.

Of course, in the current US system, the hospital still has to ask your family. And they could completely go against your wishes and opt you right back out.

so, im my opinion, we should leave the US system the way it is. relatively few deaths make a person eligible for organ donation anyway, we should just concentrate on asking the family for permission.

An opt-out system still wouldn't force anybody to give their organs, and has been shown to up per-capita donation quite a bit.

Frankly I think the religious people should spend their efforts sticking up for the rights of the living, not the dead. Especially since most religions have an element of selfless giving of oneself to help others, anyway. At least, in theory.

And we have the right to think whatever we want about religions, however, we don't have the right to dictate how they handle their dead. At least, not in the US.

And that means organs as well.

An opt-out system still wouldn't force anybody to give their organs, and has been shown to up per-capita donation quite a bit.

If I have to do something to stop another's action, they're trying to force me to do something, however gentle it may seem.

If I have to do something to stop another's action, they're trying to force me to do something, however gentle it may seem.

I don't really see it that way. Basically, we would be getting the people that don't care either way - who won't do an opt-in system either because they aren't really worried about it.

In either system, those who feel very strongly about it either way can make sure their wishes are met.

As I pointed out, there are many opt-out type systems and health care in general is an opt-out system.

Here's an option I forgot and should have included in the poll:

For those of you who think the opt-in system is best - do you think it would be a good system to only allow those who had opted in at the time of their diagnosis to receive organ transplants? After all, there is no reason that you should receive an organ if you were not willing to let someone have yours if you died.

And we have the right to think whatever we want about religions, however, we don't have the right to dictate how they handle their dead. At least, not in the US.

And that means organs as well.

Actually, we do.

I mean can you, for example, dispose of a body in just any random place? No, there are laws governing that kind of thing. Mostly, for the sake of public health and sanitation, which is what compulsory organ donation would do as well, so I don't see how it's a stretch or some gross violation of rights.

Here's an option I forgot and should have included in the poll:

For those of you who think the opt-in system is best - do you think it would be a good system to only allow those who had opted in at the time of their diagnosis to receive organ transplants? After all, there is no reason that you should receive an organ if you were not willing to let someone have yours if you died.

No replies?

MAN:
What's this, then? Mmh.
MR. BROWN:
A liver donor's card.
MAN:
Need we say more?
MR. BROWN:
Listen! I can't give it to you now. It says, 'in the event of death'.
MAN:
No one who has ever had their liver taken out by us has survived.


http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/mol/m-10-v.htm

You should never think people are going to just give up their organs after death. So yes, it should be compulsory. You don't need it after death, so why be so greedy as to deny someone who's dieing a chance at life?

You should never think people are going to just give up their organs after death. So yes, it should be compulsory. You don't need it after death, so why be so greedy as to deny someone who's dieing a chance at life?

Because neither the deceased nor the family of the deceased get anything out of it. If they could get monetary compensation for the organs say they pay for the funeral then more people would do it.

Only reason people give to charity is because of the tax writeoffs it should be the same way for organs.

No, if it was and I was on my deathbed I would take something that would ruin all my organs so there wouldn't be any use in taking them. They are mine they have been with me forever and I want them to rot with me to. I never saw someone else raising MY organs. Same way with taxes going to welfare or medicare it shouldn't.

Keep your hands off my organs unless I say you can touch them.

Opt-in is the only fair way to handle the organ donation issue. If people wish to donate their organs they sign on the the organ donor program, if not then they don't sign on. Simple. Assuming a person wants to donate their organs due to apathy or not understanding what is involved (mentally impaired people, dementia patients) is a dangerous precedent and too close to compulsory donation for my liking.
People who criticise religious people for their beliefs on this issue have no right to do so because everyone has the right to decide on whether they donate or not. If you want to donate your organs after you die, go ahead, but don't push your beliefs on other people.

Here's an option I forgot and should have included in the poll:

For those of you who think the opt-in system is best - do you think it would be a good system to only allow those who had opted in at the time of their diagnosis to receive organ transplants? After all, there is no reason that you should receive an organ if you were not willing to let someone have yours if you died.
Hmmm not sure.. this smells like extortion to me.

(snip)
Only reason people give to charity is because of the tax writeoffs it should be the same way for organs.

My mother suffered for 25 years and finally died from MS. I have given to MS research every year that I have been working. I haven't claimed the tax write off ever.
Don't make assertions that you know nothing about.

I would go with opt-out for all the reasons previously stated, BUT with the proviso that the family also be allowed to opt-out after death, so if (for whatever reason) the deceased never opted out their family can still remain true to their religion.

The other option would be for the parents to decide it on birth (right along with the name on your birth certificate). This allows for religious considerations, at a maximum of convenience and also of donors (Of course you would be able to change yourself at any time past the age of majority).

I would go with opt-out for all the reasons previously stated, BUT with the proviso that the family also be allowed to opt-out after death, so if (for whatever reason) the deceased never opted out their family can still remain true to their religion.

The other option would be for the parents to decide it on birth (right along with the name on your birth certificate). This allows for religious considerations, at a maximum of convenience and also of donors (Of course you would be able to change yourself at any time past the age of majority).

So you advocate parents authorising the commitment of their child to donate their organs? Some people have other reasons besides religious reasons and the child may not share the parents religious beliefs once they reach adulthood.

No replies?

I can go with that. If you're not willing to give yours up, why should you get one?

However, you should be able to opt-in, as soon as you find out you need another organ. You don't have to have already done so.

Because neither the deceased nor the family of the deceased get anything out of it. If they could get monetary compensation for the organs say they pay for the funeral then more people would do it.

Only reason people give to charity is because of the tax writeoffs it should be the same way for organs.

How low of an opinion you have of humans. I give to charities, and don't claim them on my tax returns. I also have OPTED-IN for organ donation. I still believe you aren't allowed to force somone else to do so, however.

I don't really see it that way. Basically, we would be getting the people that don't care either way - who won't do an opt-in system either because they aren't really worried about it.

In either system, those who feel very strongly about it either way can make sure their wishes are met.

As I pointed out, there are many opt-out type systems and health care in general is an opt-out system.

You can't make someone have to take action to have their freedom. That is force. Not a right, but a priviledge. IF you do this, THEN you have the right to say what's done with your organs.

That's just wrong. I own my body, I don't have to ask permission from the government as to what I do with it.

So you advocate parents authorising the commitment of their child to donate their organs? Some people have other reasons besides religious reasons and the child may not share the parents religious beliefs once they reach adulthood.

Of course not. Didn't you read the end of my post?

Any time after the age of majority, you can opt out (or in) for yourself.

That's just wrong. I own my body, I don't have to ask permission from the government as to what I do with it.

Do you own your body when you're dead? Technically, you won't even be you when you're dead, and you won't be owning anything at all at that point - you'll be effectively nonexistant. Or in heaven or hell, whichever you prefer.

The concept of dead people owning things is a little silly.

Do you own your body when you're dead? Technically, you won't even be you when you're dead, and you won't be owning anything at all at that point - you'll be effectively nonexistant. Or in heaven or hell, whichever you prefer.

The concept of dead people owning things is a little silly.

Doesn't matter if it makes sense to you or not. Some religions go by not "desecrating" the body after death. And that's covered by Amendment #1 in the US Constitution.

My body doesn't ever belong to the government unless I say it does. They don't have permission.

Doesn't matter if it makes sense to you or not. Some religions go by not "desecrating" the body after death. And that's covered by Amendment #1 in the US Constitution.

My body doesn't ever belong to the government unless I say it does. They don't have permission.

Of course. So the opt-out system just makes it easier to say they can have your organs. This means more organs are donated, and lives are saved. Plus, it's made easy to opt out so people don't need to compromise their religious beliefs.

Why is this concept so abhorrent to people?

While abhorrent may be too strong a word, I think involuntary organ donation is a bad idea for a number of reasons that can be illustrated best by example.

1. What happens if a 7-year-old is killed in a car accident? Presumably that child was not able to opt-out of the donation program, because he or she was not capable of contemplating the issue. Does this mean that all minor children are required to donate their organs?

2. What happens if someone dies without a will? Should we then have to "opt-out" of donating our entire estate to the State? Certainly we should have more of a right to keep our own body parts when we die than our personal property.

I don't think the government can assume the right to confiscate anything when we die, and if we do, I think it sets a dangerous precedent.

How low of an opinion you have of humans.

Its called being a Realist.

I can go with that. If you're not willing to give yours up, why should you get one?

However, you should be able to opt-in, as soon as you find out you need another organ. You don't have to have already done so.

In other words, you can lie just to get an organ. I don't think that's a good idea at all. If you weren't already willing to give up your organs - but now you are because you need one and they could never use yours either - you should still get an organ?

As an addendum:

DONOR COSTS
The donor does not pay for the cost of organ donation. The financial responsibility for the organ transplantation rests with the recipient. Insurance or Medicaid and Medicare pay for organ transplants. There are no deductibles or co-payments for living donors. According to information provided by the Coalition on Donation, the estimated U.S. average billed charges per transplantation (2001) for a liver was $267,900, kidney was $120, 800 and pancreas was $147,848. These figures also include costs associated with the first year following transplantation. The OPTN website lists policies and bylaws relating to the type of transplant needed.

This came directly from the University of Pennsylvania Medical School website. The entire text can be found here:

http://www.bioethics.upenn.edu/prog/transplant/proj_ldc_briefs.php

While I fall in the camp of the opt-in folks, I would hate to see people not donate their organs based on incorrect information.

You can't make someone have to take action to have their freedom. That is force. Not a right, but a priviledge. IF you do this, THEN you have the right to say what's done with your organs.

Happens all the time. If you don't make a will, the government decides what to do with all your stuff. So, if you don't sign something saying where your organs should go, what's the difference?

If you don't sign a living will form, the government (well, the hospital really) decides that they will put you on life support - regardless of what your wishes are (since you can't relay them).

If you don't go and get a driver's license - you don't get to drive.

That's just wrong. I own my body, I don't have to ask permission from the government as to what I do with it.

So I guess if you get in a big accident and can't give consent - doctors shouldn't put you on life support. After all, you haven't signed a consent form. How dare they have an opt-out system that tells you what to do with your body.

1. What happens if a 7-year-old is killed in a car accident? Presumably that child was not able to opt-out of the donation program, because he or she was not capable of contemplating the issue. Does this mean that all minor children are required to donate their organs?

A parent has the legal right to decide things for the child. This means that the parent can opt-out for them.

2. What happens if someone dies without a will? Should we then have to "opt-out" of donating our entire estate to the State? Certainly we should have more of a right to keep our own body parts when we die than our personal property.

There are already laws in place for this. The government looks for your next-of-kin and gives your stuff to them. Strangely enough, this is already an opt-out system. If you want your stuff going anywhere but where the government will deem proper, you have to write a will.

I don't think the government can assume the right to confiscate anything when we die, and if we do, I think it sets a dangerous precedent.

I think people are thinking too hard about this. It's not like the government is getting any profit out of it. It is the people who need organs who get something out of it - the thousands of people sitting on lists wondering if they will die before a matching organ comes up. It's not like the government really gets anything out of it, except more healthy citizens.

I think people are thinking too hard about this. It's not like the government is getting any profit out of it. It is the people who need organs who get something out of it - the thousands of people sitting on lists wondering if they will die before a matching organ comes up. It's not like the government really gets anything out of it, except more healthy citizens.


The family of the person who dies should get something out of it in the form of monetary compensation. Everything else you do that is deemed charitable has a monteray compensation assigned to it in the form of writeoffs or such. So the family of the deceased should get money for any organs that are taken and used.

There are some posts here that really make me lose my faith in mankind.

I think the people who choose not to be donors shouldn't receive a transplant if they ever need one.

There are some posts here that really make me lose my faith in mankind.

I think the people who choose not to be donors shouldn't receive a transplant if they ever need one.

you could just go to a place like china and buy the organ you need. funny how the communist country has a capitalist system for something like that.

The family of the person who dies should get something out of it in the form of monetary compensation. Everything else you do that is deemed charitable has a monteray compensation assigned to it in the form of writeoffs or such. So the family of the deceased should get money for any organs that are taken and used.

You get tax breaks (not direct monetary compensation) for charitable donations. I am all for having a system in which organ donors get tax breaks (instead of just $2 off the price of a driver's license).

However, where would the money to pay the family come from? And why is the family entitled to money in the first place if the person decided to donate their organs? If I decide to leave all my money to charity, my family doesn't get paid for that.

Of course. So the opt-out system just makes it easier to say they can have your organs. This means more organs are donated, and lives are saved. Plus, it's made easy to opt out so people don't need to compromise their religious beliefs.

Why is this concept so abhorrent to people?

Because by default, you have taken the decision out of the citizen's hand. They have to do something to stop their rights from being abused, as opposed to not having to do anything to exercise their right. That's the abhorrent part.

In other words, you can lie just to get an organ. I don't think that's a good idea at all. If you weren't already willing to give up your organs - but now you are because you need one and they could never use yours either - you should still get an organ?

Actually, I was coming at it from the stand point that they hadn't actually gotten around to the opt-in part, but were going to anyway.

If they weren't going to in the first place, it'd be rather hypocritical for them to expect special exception.

Happens all the time. If you don't make a will, the government decides what to do with all your stuff. So, if you don't sign something saying where your organs should go, what's the difference?


I have a problem with that policy as well.


If you don't go and get a driver's license - you don't get to drive.


Another regulation I have an issue with as well.


So I guess if you get in a big accident and can't give consent - doctors shouldn't put you on life support. After all, you haven't signed a consent form. How dare they have an opt-out system that tells you what to do with your body.

There's a difference between trying to save someone's life and taking what is theirs. When saving a life, you're giving, not taking.

Well, I'd say opt-out. I wouldn't say opt-in because the majority of people couldn't care less if their organs were donated. I wouldn't say compulsory, because there may be some people who hold on to Egyptian sort of beliefs (that your heart contains your soul). But most modern religions think that the body is unnecessary, that it's just a temporary "case" for your soul.

I think people are thinking too hard about this. It's not like the government is getting any profit out of it.


I call shenanigans.

Death taxes and capital gains taxes. The government DOES make a profit.

You get tax breaks (not direct monetary compensation) for charitable donations. I am all for having a system in which organ donors get tax breaks (instead of just $2 off the price of a driver's license).

However, where would the money to pay the family come from? And why is the family entitled to money in the first place if the person decided to donate their organs? If I decide to leave all my money to charity, my family doesn't get paid for that.

You could choose to either donate your organs or you could choose to sell your organs. More people would give up there organs if they could sell them.

You want my opinion on the matter?

My opinion is screw the government, NO-ONE is getting my organs, not some stranger not some icon, not even my family. I don't expect them to give thier organs to me so they shouldn't expect me to give up mine. I personally couldn't stand having another persons organs in me, like what if it came from someone you really hate? You'd feel awful from being saved by someone yo had celebrrated the death of. I'm going to be cremated just to be sure, after having a legal document drawn up that allows my similair thinking friends to sue the shit out of anyone who tries to take whats permanently mine. Either that or a'll have them nject me with tainted blood before pulling the plug, that way my organs are infected an are still mine!

:-P

Actually, I was coming at it from the stand point that they hadn't actually gotten around to the opt-in part, but were going to anyway.

If they weren't going to in the first place, it'd be rather hypocritical for them to expect special exception.

That's the problem though. Find me *one* person who wouldn't become an organ donor just so that they could get the organ they needed - especially since they would know that most of their organs would be useless after that anyways.

I call shenanigans.

Death taxes and capital gains taxes. The government DOES make a profit.

Uh... they get those regardless of whether or not you donate organs.

You want my opinion on the matter?

My opinion is screw the government, NO-ONE is getting my organs, not some stranger not some icon, not even my family. I don't expect them to give thier organs to me so they shouldn't expect me to give up mine. I personally couldn't stand having another persons organs in me, like what if it came from someone you really hate? You'd feel awful from being saved by someone yo had celebrrated the death of. I'm going to be cremated just to be sure, after having a legal document drawn up that allows my similair thinking friends to sue the shit out of anyone who tries to take whats permanently mine. Either that or a'll have them nject me with tainted blood before pulling the plug, that way my organs are infected an are still mine!

:-P

That's fine. But since you feel so strongly about it, you would have no problem filling out a little piece of paper saying so, right?

That's the problem though. Find me *one* person who wouldn't become an organ donor just so that they could get the organ they needed - especially since they would know that most of their organs would be useless after that anyways.

You're not getting it. It's not YOURS or anyone else's say in what happens to my body (or any part thereof). It doesn't matter how altruistic your intentions are (they are admirable).

You're just paving the way to total governmental control with your good intentions.

An opt-out system is subjegation, period. I am not free to live my life, devoid of governmental control of my organs, unless I do something first. That is not freedom. Freedom is not having to do anything to ensure my choices on my organs, if I don't want to.

meh.....I don't care as long as I am dead when they take em out.