NationStates Jolt Archive


What is your opinion on presumed consent (in organ donations)?

Passivocalia
15-10-2005, 23:01
http://www.organdonor.gov/myths_and_facts.htm

I am in favor of presumed consent, which means (correct me if I'm wrong) that if a citizen suffers brain death, he/she is presumed to have agreed to donate his/her viable organs to those in need, unless he/she had specified otherwise.

Incidentally, I am also in favor of a gender-neutral, humanity-recognizing, singular pronoun for the English language. But that is a completely different topic.

I am aware that, though the United States does not have this system, many other nations do. What do we all think? I actually wish it were more of a hot-button topic, myself...
Celtlund
15-10-2005, 23:09
US is just the opposite. You are presumed to not have given consent to donate, unless you specifically choose to donate. If you decide you want to donate, most states will put organ donor on your driver’s license or state ID.

I don't think it should be presumed that one wants to donate unless the specifically choose not to.
Serapindal
15-10-2005, 23:11
Yes. Post-Mortem Donation needs to be compuslary.

The wantof someone keeping something they can't possibly use after they die, is far far less important than someone's chance to live.
Heron-Marked Warriors
15-10-2005, 23:12
If you're too selfish to give up something you can't possibly need, how baout we hit you in the face with a shovel, because we're mean bastards too?
Terrorist Cakes
15-10-2005, 23:16
(Snip)

Incidentally, I am also in favor of a gender-neutral, humanity-recognizing, singular pronoun for the English language. But that is a completely different topic.

(snip)


I agree. We need another pronoun, one that means the equivelent of he/she. Too many people use they when they mean he/she, which is wrong. But what has this to do with organ donations?

EDIT: Oh. I get it now.
Laerod
15-10-2005, 23:21
:(
"Undecided, but that doesn't seem to be an option."
Heron-Marked Warriors
15-10-2005, 23:24
Incidentally, I am also in favor of a gender-neutral, humanity-recognizing, singular pronoun for the English language. But that is a completely different topic.


Go with he, and tell the feminists to go and grow up.
Passivocalia
15-10-2005, 23:26
US is just the opposite. You are presumed to not have given consent to donate, unless you specifically choose to donate. If you decide you want to donate, most states will put organ donor on your driver’s license or state ID.

I don't think it should be presumed that one wants to donate unless the specifically choose not to.

What happens if someone never gets around to specifying whether he/she would donate, but that person would really have no problem with it if the time was ever taken to consider? The result is that needless lives may be lost.

But what happens in the other society, when someone never gets around to specifying that he/she does NOT wish to donate? The result is that a dead person was too lazy to make his/her arguably selfish intentions known, but lives might be saved because of it. Hurrah for the selfish-yet-lazy folk! :D
Passivocalia
15-10-2005, 23:27
:(
"Undecided, but that doesn't seem to be an option."

Confoundation! If only I could edit the poll...
Sorry. :(
The Nazz
15-10-2005, 23:30
I'd have no real issue with presumed consent if we had a real definition of what it means to be brain dead. The definition is shockingly vague right now, according to an article I read in the New Yorker about three years ago, and it's causing some uproar over charges of organ harvesting that's taking place just a bit early in some cases.
Laerod
15-10-2005, 23:38
Confoundation! If only I could edit the poll...
Sorry. :(The mods can, but it wouldn't really be worth it. Besides, I think anyone that already voted loses their vote...

My reasoning is that I can see the merits of presumed consent and presumed disconsent. Presumed consent can save many lives. On the other hand, if someone loses their organ donor card or it isn't on the body for some reason (most organs will come from sudden deaths, since old age tends to have a detrimental effect on the organs), then they lose their organs. Now while most people don't have a major problem with this, orthodox jews do. As far as I've heard, it is important to give the body back to God the way it was received: intact. The members of the Red Star of David are trained specifically to deal with accidents and such in order to keep the body intact.
Passivocalia
15-10-2005, 23:59
I'd have no real issue with presumed consent if we had a real definition of what it means to be brain dead. The definition is shockingly vague right now, according to an article I read in the New Yorker about three years ago, and it's causing some uproar over charges of organ harvesting that's taking place just a bit early in some cases.

If that's true, then I agree the definition needs to be specified.

Now while most people don't have a major problem with this, orthodox jews do. As far as I've heard, it is important to give the body back to God the way it was received: intact. The members of the Red Star of David are trained specifically to deal with accidents and such in order to keep the body intact.

Right, and religious freedom would be the primary reason for leaving the option open to deny organs (I think Shintoism is the other main religion it's an issue for). Even so, do the Orthodox Jews believe that God can still manage to provide for them, especially since they tried as hard as they could in life to avoid mangling after death?
Laerod
16-10-2005, 00:12
Right, and religious freedom would be the primary reason for leaving the option open to deny organs (I think Shintoism is the other main religion it's an issue for). Even so, do the Orthodox Jews believe that God can still manage to provide for them, especially since they tried as hard as they could in life to avoid mangling after death?I have no clue...
Laenis
16-10-2005, 00:19
I believe instead of having to carry around a donor card if you want your organs to be donated like here in Britain, you should have to carry around a card if you don't want to donate. If you have stupid ass religious reasons for not donating, then fine, we won't force you, but you have to get the card and carry it around.
Osutoria-Hangarii
16-10-2005, 00:21
What about jews? you can't go around ripping out their organs and giving them to filthy gentiles

(lol jews)
Heron-Marked Warriors
16-10-2005, 00:21
What about jews? you can't go around ripping out their organs and giving them to filthy gentiles

(lol jews)

You so crazy. I do that all the time.
Osutoria-Hangarii
16-10-2005, 00:23
You so crazy. I do that all the time.
lol awesome
Oxwana
16-10-2005, 00:56
If you're too selfish to give up something you can't possibly need, how baout we hit you in the face with a shovel, because we're mean bastards too?Can I have your babies? :fluffle:
I've never said it like that, but it's basically how I feel. I think though, that if you think you're going to be using your organs in the afterlife or something, that's cool too. If, on the other hand, you'd just "rather not" save lives, you're a real hoser. I also don't support a family's right to go against the deceased's wishes and refuse to donate.
Leonstein
16-10-2005, 01:27
Well, on my driver's license it says explicitly that they should harvest me.

At any rate, I don't think dead people need organs, and thus taking their organs should be a standard procedure - you can restore the looks easily for the funeral.
PasturePastry
16-10-2005, 01:49
http://www.organdonor.gov/myths_and_facts.htm

I am in favor of presumed consent, which means (correct me if I'm wrong) that if a citizen suffers brain death, he/she is presumed to have agreed to donate his/her viable organs to those in need, unless he/she had specified otherwise.

Incidentally, I am also in favor of a gender-neutral, humanity-recognizing, singular pronoun for the English language. But that is a completely different topic.

I am aware that, though the United States does not have this system, many other nations do. What do we all think? I actually wish it were more of a hot-button topic, myself...

Agreed, under the condition that the deceased is considered dead for all medical and legal purposes. If they want to keep someone "alive" until organ harvesting is performed, fine, but the family of the recently deceased should not have to incur the expense.

I know what you mean though. I tend to use 3rd person plural personal pronouns interchangably with singular for lack of other options. He/she is really awkward to use.
Undelia
16-10-2005, 02:15
I don’t agree with implied consent. A person has the right to keep their organs if they choose to while they are living, and after they are deceased, their immediate family has a right to do with those organs what they will, unless the person has signed up to donate their organs. Saying otherwise is enforcing your morality on other people, which is the same as banning gay marriage and drugs because you think they are wrong.
Leonstein
16-10-2005, 02:19
A person has the right to keep their organs if they choose to while they are living,...
Clearly

...and after they are deceased, their immediate family has a right to do with those organs what they will, unless the person has signed up to donate their organs.
Why? My dead mother isn't my property, is it? At least there is no philosophical justification for it - my mother is not the product of my labour (although I am the product of my mum's labour...:D ).
Undelia
16-10-2005, 02:25
Why? My dead mother isn't my property, is it? At least there is no philosophical justification for it - my mother is not the product of my labour (although I am the product of my mum's labour...:D ).
Your body is your property. Unless otherwise noted, your property generally passes to your next of kin
Passivocalia
16-10-2005, 02:39
my mother is not the product of my labour (although I am the product of my mum's labour...:D ).

Bu-dum, ching!

Your body is your property. Unless otherwise noted, your property generally passes to your next of kin

Ah, the issue of who owns a dead body.

I always try to err on the side of saving lives who want to be saved.
Smunkeeville
16-10-2005, 02:41
I don't like the idea of presumed consent, and not because I don't want organs donated, I really do, I just worry about the ethics of the doctors who are deciding who is brain dead and who isn't.

I had a really bad experience though when my dad died, and there are still a lot of unanswered questions about the events surrounding his death, I really think they killed him for his organs.

(no please no foil hat comments, it won't be funny to me and I will get mad)
Passivocalia
16-10-2005, 02:47
snip

I'm sorry to hear that. :(

That FAQ at the top says that the people trying to save you should be completely different from those discerning whether you are a donor. It may be a bit naive of me to think of things in that way, but it would be a condition of me going along with the process.

There's just got to be a way to ensure those kind of things don't happen. Of course, maybe there isn't...
Smunkeeville
16-10-2005, 02:53
I'm sorry to hear that. :(

That FAQ at the top says that the people trying to save you should be completely different from those discerning whether you are a donor. It may be a bit naive of me to think of things in that way, but it would be a condition of me going along with the process.

There's just got to be a way to ensure those kind of things don't happen. Of course, maybe there isn't...
I am trying to protect myself (may be futile) I didn't mark my box on my drivers license, and when they ask me about organ donation I say it is up to my husband. He knows that he is to get a second opinion about me being brain dead and if he is satisfied that I really am, then he can donate everything I got.
De Kempen
16-10-2005, 03:14
Compulsory it shall be as God revealed to me, the Post Modern Messiah, three times that donating organs is fine, even for Jews! In fact, God has chosen the Jews to be the Earth's organ supply.

The Lord has also revealed to me that Catholics are recommended to donate vital organs whilst they are still alive as they consider sacrifice so valuable.
Heron-Marked Warriors
16-10-2005, 03:21
Can I have your babies? :fluffle:
I've never said it like that, but it's basically how I feel. I think though, that if you think you're going to be using your organs in the afterlife or something, that's cool too. If, on the other hand, you'd just "rather not" save lives, you're a real hoser. I also don't support a family's right to go against the deceased's wishes and refuse to donate.

As long as me thinking the religious argument is daft doesn't get in the way of our baby making, let's get it on:fluffle:
Ashmoria
16-10-2005, 03:55
I don't like the idea of presumed consent, and not because I don't want organs donated, I really do, I just worry about the ethics of the doctors who are deciding who is brain dead and who isn't.

I had a really bad experience though when my dad died, and there are still a lot of unanswered questions about the events surrounding his death, I really think they killed him for his organs.

(no please no foil hat comments, it won't be funny to me and I will get mad)
YIKES! do you think they "killed him for his organs" meaning that he would have lived a good long time if they had done something different or do you think they managed his dying with an eye to optimizing the chances of successful organ transplant?

not that either would be a good thing, but one is worse than the other

i feel that organ donation is a GIFT. its wrong to assume or to force it. either a person wants to give or they dont and if they dont they dont need to justify it to anyone.

i do, however, think that checking the donor box on ones drivers license or state ID should be deemed as permission and that it would then NOT be up to the family to decide. (although now that i think about it i would prefer to be informed beforehand if one of my family died)
Serapindal
16-10-2005, 04:10
Your body is your property. Unless otherwise noted, your property generally passes to your next of kin

Incorrect.

Your body is property of the government.

(At least I hope it is...)
Smunkeeville
16-10-2005, 04:25
YIKES! do you think they "killed him for his organs" meaning that he would have lived a good long time if they had done something different or do you think they managed his dying with an eye to optimizing the chances of successful organ transplant?

not that either would be a good thing, but one is worse than the other

i feel that organ donation is a GIFT. its wrong to assume or to force it. either a person wants to give or they dont and if they dont they dont need to justify it to anyone.

i do, however, think that checking the donor box on ones drivers license or state ID should be deemed as permission and that it would then NOT be up to the family to decide. (although now that i think about it i would prefer to be informed beforehand if one of my family died)

yeah it is kinda a long story, basically he ripped his aorta, got surgery to repair it, had a stroke, recovered from both, had a heart attack, recovered, was doing fine, doctor said he had a miraculous recovery, all of this happened in the span of a week, he was fine for 2 weeks after that, was talking, heart rate was okay, no problems at all, no damage from the stroke, then they called me and said he died, they never could tell me why, they had him cremated before we could do an autopsy, I had to fight to get his death certificate and the cause of death was unknown, I went through a whole lot of crap to get his medical records and all his vital signs were normal the hour before what the time of death said on the death certificate. I was living in another state when all this was going on and was traveling back and forth. The hospital arranged for his cremation without asking us if that was okay, and donated his organs without contacting any of the family. I am very suspicious of the entire situation. I don't know what to think so I try not to think about it at all.
Marxist Rhetoric
16-10-2005, 04:34
I think it should be compulsory. We don't allow murder based on religious beliefs and we shouldn't allow them toi deny use of their organs as it is just that, murder.
Smunkeeville
16-10-2005, 04:38
I think it should be compulsory. We don't allow murder based on religious beliefs and we shouldn't allow them toi deny use of their organs as it is just that, murder.
okay. you can live without a kidney and part of your liver, and a lung, and a whole lot of other stuff, so when are you going down to donate them?
you aren't going to deny use of them to people who are dying everyday are you?
I mean like you said that would be murder.

[sarcasm]

just want to know where you actually do draw the murder/personal freedom line?
Marxist Rhetoric
16-10-2005, 04:41
Right, but we have redundant systems for a reason. After death, it would cause no harm to the donor nd have no chance to. I give a kidney in life and the other fails. I die or take a kidney from the banks. I die with two kidneys and contribute them to society. There is no chance of harm after death. I'm not asking people to take a bullet.
Smunkeeville
16-10-2005, 04:47
Right, but we have redundant systems for a reason. After death, it would cause no harm to the donor nd have no chance to. I give a kidney in life and the other fails. I die or take a kidney from the banks. I die with two kidneys and contribute them to society. There is no chance of harm after death. I'm not asking people to take a bullet.
okay just making sure. I do believe though that religious objection to medical procedures should be taken into account, but sometimes overridden. I don't think that organ donation is one of those times.

I remember hearing about a little girl from my state who died because her parents wouldn't take her to the hospital because their religion forbid it, she died of dehydration. It is cases where it is life and death that I think there should be someone that can step in and override a medical decision, but only if the patient is unable to consent to thier own treatment (a minor, someone in a coma) it all gets very complicated though.
Marxist Rhetoric
16-10-2005, 04:52
Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to accept blood transfusion, Penteecostals refuse vaccination. Catholics deny birth control. They only compound problems in society.

Then again, we shouldn't just infringe on those rights for children. Who's to tell what messed up life the person had to accept death over "uncleanliness" in living? Ever heard of the problems with cult survivors? same thing, but accepted.
Undelia
16-10-2005, 04:58
Incorrect.

Your body is property of the government.

(At least I hope it is...)
You scare the hell out of me.
Passivocalia
16-10-2005, 09:12
Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to accept blood transfusion, Penteecostals refuse vaccination. Catholics deny birth control. They only compound problems in society.

Ahem. Since this is about a different topic, I will make a singular comment, allow you or anyone else to counter-remark, and move on. :)

Blood transfusion is to put more blood into someone's body so that a person lives. Vaccination is to make a body more immune to disease so that a person lives. Birth control is to stop a child from coming into existence.

As far as disease transmission is concerned; if one's spouse has something of that nature, it is generally grounds for dispensation of the rule. If one is sexing with multiple partners and not wishing to spread things... then, well, they're already not following Catholic doctrine, right?

So, regardless of whether you think it's senseless or not, condemning artificial birth control is in a completely different area than condemning life-saving procedures.

If you want to argue the sense in it, go ahead and make a board for it. :D
Venusmound
16-10-2005, 10:09
I believe presumed consent is the best way to balance the rights of the individual with the rights of people who need organ donation. Family members' wishes are bullshit -- it's a person's own organs, it should be their decision, and the family should shut the hell up and respect it. Too many families tearing themselves apart after a death over stupid stuff like that. Disregarding the family and presuming consent forces people to think about their death and plan ahead for it, which is best for them and for society as a whole.
Leonstein
16-10-2005, 10:22
You scare the hell out of me.
Well, a soldier's body kinda is the property of the government.

Compulsory harvest of Servicemen and -women?
Venusmound
16-10-2005, 10:37
Ahem. Since this is about a different topic, I will make a singular comment, allow you or anyone else to counter-remark, and move on. :)

Blood transfusion is to put more blood into someone's body so that a person lives. Vaccination is to make a body more immune to disease so that a person lives. Birth control is to stop a child from coming into existence.

As far as disease transmission is concerned; if one's spouse has something of that nature, it is generally grounds for dispensation of the rule. If one is sexing with multiple partners and not wishing to spread things... then, well, they're already not following Catholic doctrine, right?

So, regardless of whether you think it's senseless or not, condemning artificial birth control is in a completely different area than condemning life-saving procedures.

If you want to argue the sense in it, go ahead and make a board for it. :DGreat post!
Passivocalia
16-10-2005, 17:47
I notice a lot of people are choosing the "No... but my rationale isn't on this poll" option. Is this rationale generally the whole "organ and tissue should be a gift, and thus not be presumed" statement that was made by someone? Or are there other reasons? Or, is it just one of those things you just don't agree with, but you can't really understand quite why?

Incidentally, I have no idea why I put the option for "Yes... but my rationale isn't on this poll." It doesn't even make sense. Still, it's fun that someone voted for it! :D