NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7186007.stm

Currently you have to sign up to the organ donor register, then when you die hope that your organs are suitable for donation and your family don't act like assholes and stop the NHS taking them. Under a system of presumed consent, as is in Spain, for example, it would be 'presumed' (hence the name, duh) that you want to donate your organs, unless you've said otherwise. Of course, your family can still act like assholes and stop that.

As you may have been able to guess, I would support a change in the system. In fact, I'd go so far as to have my will say that my family gets shit if they try to stop my organs being donated.

So, views? Which system would you prefer?

Summary of thread:

A: Surely it is a right to not have our organs taken from us after death!

F: Yes, therefore you can apply for them not to!

A: But that's like saying we have to go through the process of filling out forms and doing loads of other pointless crap so that we may have freedom of speech!

F: But we need to do cost benefit analysis here: surely the potential to save many lives should override the annoyance in filling out forms...

A: But it's the principle that matters!

F: No it isn't!

and so on, and so on.

I absolutely, completely support this measure. And also:

In fact, I'd go so far as to have my will say that my family gets shit if they try to stop my organs being donated.
That's a good idea. I think I'll do it too.

My family and friends are already well aware that, when I die, I wish any bits and pieces of my body that might prove useful to be used.

The idea of presumed consent makes good sense to me.

I understand that families will object to anything the deceased wants, after he/she is deceased. What I fail to see is why.

I've signed up to be an organ donor, although by the time I die, I doubt any of them will be useful. Everyone in my family is signed up for this (except my ex-husband, who fears that a person of color might get one of his fish-belly-white organs).

i like this idea, i can't remember if i've signed my consent already or not. there's a bit on my driving licence that i signed but i think that's only valid in jersey.

Why not? It's still going to take a while for cloned organs and tissue to be widely available, and in the meantime those waiting lists aren't getting any shorter...might as well save some lives rather than let those perfectly useful organs go to waste.

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty damn sure you're not going to need them after you're dead. Unless you go to the Egyptian afterlife, in which case it would be more of an interesting paradox (do you share the organs with the living person?) than anything else. Besides, doing a good thing on your way out might give you some additional credit.

I believe they also want professional 'organ harvesters' to persuade families to allow doctors to remove organs dead relatives. That'd be such a cool job to break the ice at parties.

I believe they also want professional 'organ harvesters' to persuade families to allow doctors to remove organs dead relatives. That'd be such a cool job to break the ice at parties.

You'd be like a modern version of the Tleilaxu.

So, views? Which system would you prefer?
Put simply, lives could be saved by these organs, while the dead have no use for them. I don't have much sympathy for anyone who wants to opt out.

You'd be like a modern version of the Tleilaxu.
Now that's a word I didn't know this morning.:)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7186007.stm

Currently you have to sign up to the organ donor register, then when you die hope that your organs are suitable for donation and your family don't act like assholes and stop the NHS taking them. Under a system of presumed consent, as is in Spain, for example, it would be 'presumed' (hence the name, duh) that you want to donate your organs, unless you've said otherwise. Of course, your family can still act like assholes and stop that.

As you may have been able to guess, I would support a change in the system. In fact, I'd go so far as to have my will say that my family gets shit if they try to stop my organs being donated.

So, views? Which system would you prefer?

I think it's a brilliant idea, as in polls usually around 70% of people say they would be willing to donate their organs, but less than 10% do. If people are against organ donation they will make sure they are not on the organ donors' list but people who are in favour of it might not make the effort to put themselves on the list.

Ah, so another addition to the death tax then ;)

Presumed consent is a good idea just so long as it is well publicised so that those who are freaked out by the idea can withdraw consent.

Put simply, lives could be saved by these organs, while the dead have no use for them. I don't have much sympathy for anyone who wants to opt out.

Seriously; I just can't understand why anyone would want to let their organs rot in the ground or be cremated rather than give life to another person. That seems like one hell of a good thing to do at the end of your life.

Cummon there must be some opposition, don't make my awesome summary look like a complete load of bollocks!

So basically they presume you wanted your organ's donated because you didn't want to take the hours upon hours of filling out forms to "ASK" if the government could please not take your organs when you die...here's a note, drink and smoke as much as you can so no matter what happens your organs will not be suitable for donations, I mean you should do that anyway cause its fun and other than that there's no reason to live except for the mindless hours of work and then sleep...then work...then sleep...work and so on and so on o.O

Pfft. Plastination FTW!

Cummon there must be some opposition, don't make my awesome summary look like a complete load of bollocks!
Ahh, don't worry too much. Even with something as obviously beneficial and victimless as presumed consent there will be detractors somewhere. It's only a matter of time ;)

Ahh, don't worry too much. Even with something as obviously beneficial and victimless as presumed consent there will be detractors somewhere. It's only a matter of time ;)
My mum and my grandma. "Gordon Brown's lost the plot!"

I'm all for it, especially as it will save lives. Too few people currently give their internal gubbins away after they die. Obviously some people may be against for religious or moral reasons, and others will be freaked out by the fact that others have their bits. I know a few people who don't want people taking their eyes after they're dead, but are all for the rest of it going.

Myself, I'll be dead, so I ain't going to have any use for my organs once I'm gone, bar the fact some bits'll be fucked because I drink and smoke. I did fill out the thing on my driving license, so it's known at the moment. It was a question which brought home the fact that I'm going to die, albeit briefly.

The idea of "organ harvesters" does sound a bit dodgey, though. Pressuring people into making a decision they might not be comfortable with, especially so soon after a loved one has died. And, this being New "Labour", these harvesters would undoubtedly be given targets to attain each month and money incentives to do it, so these ghoulish people will be forcing people to do something they might not be comfortable with doing.

Cummon there must be some opposition, don't make my awesome summary look like a complete load of bollocks!

Sadly, I think you'll find most people who are educated enough to turn on a computer screen and type all the necessary letters to get here are clever enough to figure out that this is a good idea.

On a slightly more serious point, I think we should have the option of choosing where our body parts get used for: Scientific research, transplantation, obscure wigs, etc.

As long as people are made aware of the change, I would positively support it.

On a slightly more serious point, I think we should have the option of choosing where our body parts get used for: Scientific research, transplantation, obscure wigs, etc.
Ewww... must be some very obscure wig makers out there...

Ewww... must be some very obscure wig makers out there...

Clearly you've never been to Singapore.

Sounds bad to me. If you want to be an organ donor fine, don't forced it on other people with 'presumed' consent crap.

It was a question which brought home the fact that I'm going to die, albeit briefly.
You're only going to die briefly? How's that? :p

Must admit, I was hoping for a bit more opposition as well.

So basically they presume you wanted your organ's donated because you didn't want to take the hours upon hours of filling out forms to "ASK" if the government could please not take your organs when you die
I'd imagine it'd take about as long as it currently takes to sign up for the donor register. So about two minutes, then.

Sounds bad to me. If you want to be an organ donor fine, don't forced it on other people with 'presumed' consent crap.

how is it forced on anyone? They can opt out any time they want.

how is it forced on anyone? They can opt out any time they want.

Oh the opposite side, you just opt in now. Besides, I don't want the government, hospital, doctor, or whoever presuming anything for me. I think the current system if fine, people can just opt in, and it doesn't run the risk of the government 'presuming' wrongly in case someone dies without opting out.

Oh the opposite side, you just opt in now. Besides, I don't want the government, hospital, doctor, or whoever presuming anything for me. I think the current system if fine, people can just opt in, and it doesn't run the risk of the government 'presuming' wrongly in case someone dies without opting out.
The current system isn't fine, as way too few people sign up and more people need replacement organs every year.

Oh the opposite side, you just opt in now. Besides, I don't want the government, hospital, doctor, or whoever presuming anything for me. I think the current system if fine, people can just opt in, and it doesn't run the risk of the government 'presuming' wrongly in case someone dies without opting out.

Frankly speaking, I think the lives that can be saved are more important than your dead corpse, if you can't be assed to sign a form.

The current system isn't fine, as way too few people sign up and more people need replacement organs every year.

Well that's just tough, isn't it? There will always be too few organs to go around. All that is needed is more awareness of organ donation, and perhaps more will donate, NOT a system where your wishes are presumed for you.

Well that's just tough, isn't it? There will always be too few organs to go around. All that is needed is more awareness of organ donation, and perhaps more will donate, NOT a system where your wishes are presumed for you.

or we can not spend more money, and decide that if you're too fucking lazy and indifferent to sign a form protecting your cold, dead corpse, then you don't care.

Well that's just tough, isn't it? There will always be too few organs to go around. All that is needed is more awareness of organ donation, and perhaps more will donate, NOT a system where your wishes are presumed for you.
That's kind of heartless, man. The fact that the situation can be reversed is the bringing in of this "presumed consent" means that it kind of ought to be brought in.

or we can not spend more money, and decide that if you're too fucking lazy and indifferent to sign a form protecting your cold, dead corpse, then you don't care.

Spend money on it? How about a couple of fliers at the DMV, doctor's offices, and hospitals. As far as a know, a flier costs a few cents.

Well that's just tough, isn't it? There will always be too few organs to go around.

..

Not if you change the system! That's the whole point!


All that is needed is more awareness of organ donation, and perhaps more will donate, NOT a system where your wishes are presumed for you.

Why? The latter is far far more effective, the former is completely ineffective.

Spend money on it? How about a couple of fliers at the DMV, doctor's offices, and hospitals. As far as a know, a flier costs a few cents.

actually, they're there already. Every time you get a license, there's a form about organ donation.

The fact that you don't even notice them is just proof of their ineffectiveness.

That's kind of heartless, man. The fact that the situation can be reversed is the bringing in of this "presumed consent" means that it kind of ought to be brought in.

I don't care if its heartless. I have a low opinion of organ donation in the first place, and a change (even if it is the UK), to make presumed you want to donate just pisses me off.

..

Not if you change the system! That's the whole point!



Why? The latter is far far more effective, the former is completely ineffective.

How will making it presumed you want to donate make it so there are enough organs? I bet it might increase the supply of organs, but ...whatever. How many people need organ transplants yearly vs supply of organs? I'd be interested to see that.

actually, they're there already. Every time you get a license, there's a form about organ donation.

The fact that you don't even notice them is just proof of their ineffectiveness.

I know they are at the DMV. I only remember seeing one. There should be one when you walk in, a few in the mile long line, and behind the clerk. Maybe 5 bucks in fliers per DMV station. They should still put them up other places,

I don't care if its heartless.

Then your opinion really isn't worthwhile.

I have a low opinion of organ donation in the first place

What the fuck?


How will making it presumed you want to donate make it so there are enough organs?

There will probably never be "enough" organs, but it will increase the amount of organs available.

Which means it will save lives.

I already have a card but I have always wondered what if my heart got tired of my shit...

I have a low opinion of organ donation in the first place

never mind the rest of your argument this intrigues me as to why?

I know they are at the DMV. I only remember seeing one. There should be one when you walk in, a few in the mile long line, and behind the clerk. Maybe 5 bucks in fliers per DMV station. They should still put them up other places,
Never been to the British equivalent of the DMV. I assume it's the DVLA, and I've only sent things to them, and they send me things back.
I have a low opinion of organ donation in the first place
How can you have a low a opinion of organ donation? It's necessary, it does good!

How will making it presumed you want to donate make it so there are enough organs? I bet it might increase the supply of organs, but ...whatever.

Answered your own question.


How many people need organ transplants yearly vs supply of organs? I'd be interested to see that.

The supply is far too small, hence the massively long waiting lists. Many aren't able to get a transplant in time.

Then your opinion really isn't worthwhile.



What the fuck?




There will probably never be "enough" organs, but it will increase the amount of organs available.

Which means it will save lives.

If your an organ donor, why will the doctors try as hard to a save you when your death could save, 2+ other people?

Also, why the hell does someone need an organ donation in the first place? Is it a genetic defect? If so, perhaps its better if they went. Is it from drugs, alcohol, tobacco? Well too damn bad, you did it to yourself. It is because you are old? Perhaps its your time to go.

If someone wants to donate their organs when they die, great. Good for them. No one else should presume a decision like this, however. People should decide for themselves.

If your an organ donor, why will the doctors try as hard to a save you when your death could save, 2+ other people?

your trust in doctors alarms me, do you consider them rampant organ thieves? instead of you' know those guys you have told about everything and haven't told nobody

Also, why the hell does someone need an organ donation in the first place? Is it a genetic defect? If so, perhaps its better if they went. Is it from drugs, alcohol, tobacco? Well too damn bad, you did it to yourself. It is because you are old? Perhaps its your time to go.

you overestimate human biology and also seem to think that giving them your organs even when they are just buying a few years is somehow not fair

are you going to be using them?

If someone wants to donate their organs when they die, great. Good for them. No one else should presume a decision like this, however. People should decide for themselves.

my heart bleeds for those who can't be arsed filling out a simple form

I dislike the system immensely. Very simply, the fundamental principle that we ought to give organs is wrong; like any form of charity, the whole sodding point is that it is voluntary and motivated by an altruistic conviction. This legislation would alter the system from a charitable one to one resembling the sort of soulless, bureaucratic taxation New labour seems so enamoured with.

If your an organ donor, why will the doctors try as hard to a save you when your death could save, 2+ other people?

Because they're doctors?

Also, why the hell does someone need an organ donation in the first place? Is it a genetic defect? If so, perhaps its better if they went. Is it from drugs, alcohol, tobacco? Well too damn bad, you did it to yourself. It is because you are old? Perhaps its your time to go.

You do realize that elderly, as well as drug/tobacco/alchohol users are pretty much at the bottom of the organ transplant list, for just that reason, right?

As for a needed organ due to "genetic defect"...perhaps it's better if they went?

Didn't realize I was talking with a nazi. Does really call into question the validity of your opinions.

People should decide for themselves.

And by choosing not to opt out, they do just that.

You fail.

If your an organ donor, why will the doctors try as hard to a save you when your death could save, 2+ other people?


What?


Also, why the hell does someone need an organ donation in the first place? Is it a genetic defect? If so, perhaps its better if they went.

Eugenics much?


Is it from drugs, alcohol, tobacco? Well too damn bad, you did it to yourself.

So? People make mistakes, that does not justify their death. The fact that you have to bring your moralising crap to justify the death of someone is pretty, shit.


It is because you are old? Perhaps its your time to go.


Thats why they tend to be given less priority in waiting lists.

But regardless of this, there are countless examples of when it is neither of these things.


If someone wants to donate their organs when they die, great. Good for them. No one else should presume a decision like this, however. People should decide for themselves.

Why?

I dislike the system immensely. Very simply, the fundamental principle that we ought to give organs is wrong; like any form of charity, the whole sodding point is that it is voluntary and motivated by an altruistic conviction.

Your argument would be worthwhile if any of that changed. It's still entirely, 100% voluntary, and no perosn, ever, would be forced to donate organs, at all. If you do not wish to participate, you need not, and you freely choose to do so.

Because they're doctors?

So? I don't like doctors.



You do realize that elderly, as well as drug/tobacco/alchohol users are pretty much at the bottom of the organ transplant list, for just that reason, right?


That's what I figured, but thanks for clarifying.

As for a needed organ due to "genetic defect"...perhaps it's better if they went?

Didn't realize I was talking with a nazi. Does really call into question the validity of your opinions.


I'm not a Nazi. I just think that perhaps it might someones time to go. It would also benefit the gene pool if someone with genetic disorders didn't breed. That's simple. I'm not saying they should be killed, sterilized, or anything. I'm just calling it like I see it.


And by choosing not to opt out, they do just that.

You fail.

Uh, no?
The choice is still presumed for them. That is wrong.

Well that’s just tough, isn’t it? There will always be too few organs to go around. All that is needed is more awareness of organ donation, and perhaps more will donate, NOT a system where your wishes are presumed for you.
Your argument makes no sense.

If your wishes are presumed for you by a system where you can opt out, then they are as much presumed for you by by a system where you can opt in. I could just as easily be railing against the idea of a government daring to presume that I didn’t want to donate my organs after death.



On a more on-topic note, I wonder what effect this will have on donation of bodies/organs to science? I’m currently signed up as an organ donor, but I’ve always toyed with the idea of leaving my body to science; the anatomy labs at my university, for example.

Your argument would be worthwhile if any of that changed. It's still entirely, 100% voluntary, and no perosn, ever, would be forced to donate organs, at all. If you do not wish to participate, you need not, and you freely choose to do so.

Indeed. However, Labour's new legislation alters the system in one crucial, if typically subtle and dastardly, respect; it DOES presume that one consents to organ donation. It is similar to inverting the fundamental principle of justice to "guilty until proven" innocent; one can maintain that it will have little effect, purely because "justice will be done" and all that, however, in reality it will simply lead to results inexorbaly shifting towards the direction chosen.

Indeed. However, "Labour"'s new legislation alters the system in one crucial, if typically subtle and dastardly, respect; it DOES presume that one consents to organ donation. It is similar to inverting the fundamental principle of justice to "guilty until proven" innocent; one can maintain that it will have little effect, purely because "justice will be done" and all that, however, in reality it will simply lead to results inexorbaly shifting towards the direction chosen.
It's hardly in the same field. This thing would save innumerable lives across the country, and I can honestly see it only being a good thing.

Here in the States the government has a long and proud tradition of losing -- or "losing" -- important records. I think there would be some serious opposition to presumed consent if the idea was ever floated on this side of the pond, because people would be concerned that they'd fill out all the right forms and then their organs would be harvested anyway.

Personally I'm signed up to be a donor, but I understand why some of my fellow-citizens don't trust our institutions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7186007.stm

Currently you have to sign up to the organ donor register, then when you die hope that your organs are suitable for donation and your family don't act like assholes and stop the NHS taking them. Under a system of presumed consent, as is in Spain, for example, it would be 'presumed' (hence the name, duh) that you want to donate your organs, unless you've said otherwise. Of course, your family can still act like assholes and stop that.

As you may have been able to guess, I would support a change in the system. In fact, I'd go so far as to have my will say that my family gets shit if they try to stop my organs being donated.

So, views? Which system would you prefer?


I think it's the greatest irony in the world that many of the biggest opponents to compulsory(or even presumed consent) organ donation are also anti-abortion activists. Isn't it fun that they think corpses should have more right to their bodies than live women?

Personally, I think organ donation should be compulsory.

Oh the opposite side, you just opt in now. Besides, I don't want the government, hospital, doctor, or whoever presuming anything for me. I think the current system if fine, people can just opt in, and it doesn't run the risk of the government 'presuming' wrongly in case someone dies without opting out.

You just opt out now. Besides, I don't want the government, hospital, doctor, or whoever presuming anything for me. I think the new system if fine, people can just opt out, and it doesn't run the risk of the government 'presuming' wrongly in case someone dies without opting in.

You just opt out now. Besides, I don't want the government, hospital, doctor, or whoever presuming anything for me. I think the new system if fine, people can just opt out, and it doesn't run the risk of the government 'presuming' wrongly in case someone dies without opting in.

Haha, ok, ok.

How about this: when you go the DMV, they ask you a yes or no question," Do you want to be an organ donor?" Every time you get your license, if yes, you fill out a form, if not, then you go on your merry way. That way everyone is asked. That seems fair to me.

I think it's the greatest irony in the world that many of the biggest opponents to compulsory(or even presumed consent) organ donation are also anti-abortion activists. Isn't it fun that they think corpses should have more right to their bodies than live women?

Personally, I think organ donation should be compulsory.

Compulsory my ass. I'd rather burn my organs in a pyre than donate them.

Indeed. However, Labour’s new legislation alters the system in one crucial, if typically subtle and dastardly, respect; it DOES presume that one consents to organ donation.
Have a read (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13368659&postcount=49).


How about this: when you go the DMV, they ask you a yes or no question,“ Do you want to be an organ donor?” Every time you get your license, if yes, you fill out a form, if not, then you go on your merry way. That way everyone is asked. That seems fair to me.
And for those of us who don’t need a driver’s license?

Compulsory my ass. I'd rather burn my organs in a pyre than donate them.

Well you can't. You'll be dead. So Nyah! :p

And for those of us who don’t need a driver’s license?

Uhh, well I thought pretty much everyone had a drivers license, even if they didn't own a car. How about you can still go the DMV, or a maybe hospital and get an organ donor card.

Well you can't. You'll be dead. So Nyah! :p

True, but maybe I'll put in my will or something that I want to burned on a pyre, with all my body parts, when I die. I could manage something like that.

I think it's the greatest irony in the world that many of the biggest opponents to compulsory(or even presumed consent) organ donation are also anti-abortion activists. Isn't it fun that they think corpses should have more right to their bodies than live women?

Personally, I think organ donation should be compulsory.

It makes sense though. It's the same kind of identification with the sentient-yet-voiceless, whether that's a fetus or a car-accident victim in a coma. Coupled with the fear that somebody will decide it's not worth saving your life because other people's wishes take priority.

Uhh, well I thought pretty much everyone had a drivers license, even if they didn’t own a car.
Not at all.

How about you can still go the DMV, or a maybe hospital and get an organ donor card.
How about I leave the process of signing up organ donation between me and a government website, and leaving government departments of transport and busy hospitals out of the picture entirely.

Like it is already (in the UK).

And then, how about we change the system so that I can log on and opt out of an organ donation system, massively easing the process of donation and increasing the amount of organs donated, all while ensuring those who wish to opt-out, can.

Yup, sounds good to me.

Compulsory my ass. I'd rather burn my organs in a pyre than donate them.

Why? Why would you rather burn your organs then save someones life?

Why? Why would you rather burn your organs then save someones life?
The word "selfish" comes to mind.

True, but maybe I'll put in my will or something that I want to burned on a pyre, with all my body parts, when I die. I could manage something like that.

And when the attorneys read your will and realize that your organs were harvested shortly after you were declared dead, flown to where they were needed and placed into recipients already they'll go, "Shit! Oh well. Let's go get some lunch. The deli on the corner makes a great quiche."

:)

Why? Why would you rather burn your organs then save someones life?

Paranoia, apparently.

It makes sense though. It's the same kind of identification with the sentient-yet-voiceless, whether that's a fetus or a car-accident victim in a coma. Coupled with the fear that somebody will decide it's not worth saving your life because other people's wishes take priority.

It's an irrational fear.

"Shit! Oh well. Let's go get some lunch. The deli on the corner makes a great quiche."

but what kind of quiche?...omg soylent quiche is people!

I believe they also want professional 'organ harvesters' to persuade families to allow doctors to remove organs dead relatives. That'd be such a cool job to break the ice at parties.

They already exist although they're known as 'transplant co-ordinators'. Their role would just be expanded to include all patients families

It's an irrational fear.

I wasn't claiming the position was rational, I was just musing that the two positions (anti-abortion and anti-presumed-consent) had some overlap.

Most of the objections to organ donation are irrational, but I think people have a right to be irrational in the decisions they make concerning their own bodies.

(I'm sure I'll think of a counterexample in about 5 seconds.)

Haha, ok, ok.

How about this: when you go the DMV, they ask you a yes or no question," Do you want to be an organ donor?" Every time you get your license, if yes, you fill out a form, if not, then you go on your merry way. That way everyone is asked. That seems fair to me.

Alright, then: Here's question for you.

How about this: when you go the DMV, they ask you a yes or no question," Do you want opt out of organ donation?" Every time you get your license, if no, you fill out a form, if yes, then you go on your merry way. That way everyone is asked. That seems fair to me.

I want to donate my body to a medical school when I die and they will not take me unless I have all my organs so I do not want to be an organ donor.

But I heard that, in the U.S., doctors can and will take your healthy valuable organs after death regardless of wether or not your driver's license says that you are an organ donor unless you specifically have some paper that says not to. I heard that being an organ donor gives a hospital the right to take your organs if they think you are going to die. Anyone heard that before?

Maybe you're thinking of the difference between brain death and cardiac death

I want to donate my body to a medical school when I die and they will not take me unless I have all my organs so I do not want to be an organ donor.

But I heard that, in the U.S., doctors can and will take your healthy valuable organs after death regardless of wether or not your driver's license says that you are an organ donor unless you specifically have some paper that says not to. I heard that being an organ donor gives a hospital the right to take your organs if they think you are going to die. Anyone heard that before?

yeah, if you are an organ donor, can they take your stuff if you fall into a irreversable coma?

There's a difference between brain death and what the general public see as a synonym (i.e. a persistant coma)

yeah, if you are an organ donor, can they take your stuff if you fall into a irreversable coma?

what? No. Of course not. They can only take your organs once you're dead, and they can't remove you from life support in order ot harvest you.

Maybe you're thinking of the difference between brain death and cardiac death

yeah, if you are an organ donor, can they take your stuff if you fall into a irreversable coma?

But I heard that, in the U.S., doctors can and will take your healthy valuable organs after death regardless of wether or not your driver's license says that you are an organ donor unless you specifically have some paper that says not to. I heard that being an organ donor gives a hospital the right to take your organs if they think you are going to die. Anyone heard that before?

good old paranoia if you ask me, the news would be all over it if such a thing occurred

yeah, if you are an organ donor, can they take your stuff if you fall into a irreversable coma?

They will, but only when it is decided to take you off live support. If your family decides to keep you going then they won't take them (anless they are still good when you die late)

well I for one have aalways wanted to try pate de human. When my older brother dies I want dibbs on his liver. His tasty liver. :)

family first!

well I for one have aalways wanted to try pate de human. When my older brother dies I want dibbs on his liver. His tasty liver. :)

family first!

He can donate while he's alive. Just get a slice of it now ;)

well I for one have aalways wanted to try pate de human. When my older brother dies I want dibbs on his liver. His tasty liver. :)

make sure he dies a traumatic and drawn out death. for extra yummy!

make sure he dies a traumatic and drawn out death. for extra yummy!

well he might die when I put a funnel down his throat and pour grain into his stomach. That is how your force-feed a goose for goose liver right?

well he might die when I put a funnel down his throat and pour grain into his stomach. That is how your force-feed a goose for goose liver right?

i have to say i don't know. i know they are force-fed though. but the trauma thing makes the liver produce whatever stuff it is that makes it taste nice.

But I heard that, in the U.S., doctors can and will take your healthy valuable organs after death regardless of wether or not your driver's license says that you are an organ donor unless you specifically have some paper that says not to.

WRONG, wrong, wrong.

Unless there is written permission given somewhere, (ie. on the driver's licence) the doctors CANNOT by law harvest a thing. That is why some have to do the 'vulture thing' with the newly bereaved family, they have GOT to get permission on file.

And as some organs have a 'post mortem' shelf life, if not harvested within that time frame, they become useless.

Yup, sounds good to me.

Except UK Transplant are against the idea

but what kind of quiche?...omg soylent quiche is people!

i sigged this cuz it made me giggle.

Cummon there must be some opposition, don't make my awesome summary look like a complete load of bollocks!

The idea is absolutely ridiculous.
Organ-harvesters presuming consent to take my liver and other prized parts?
Over my dead body!! :mad:

I like this idea. My sister in law would be dead on on dialysis 24/7 if redwulf hadn't matched her blood type and give her a kidney. Not the happiest thought in the world...

Why should anybody have the right to refuse organ donation, they will be dead they don't need it, it's almost manslaughter.

Also, why the hell does someone need an organ donation in the first place? Is it a genetic defect? If so, perhaps its better if they went.

Because, what, people with deformed kidneys are somehow less deserving of life? You've just revealed yourself to be a jackass of the highest order, sir. (And I'm sure my sister in law would be interested to know that she doesn't deserve to live because her kidneys aren't perfect.)

Why should anybody have the right to refuse organ donation, they will be dead they don't need it, it's almost manslaughter.

as a point of interest, and hopefully not too much of a thread jack, what rights do the dead have beyond what they put in their will? any lawyers with an answer?

if it was up to me i'd say none, but i tend to be a bit cold when it comes to death, never has affected me much.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7186007.stm

So, views?

My first view was

NHS official: "We've come for your Liver!"
Man: "but I'm using it."
NHS Official: "Right... what's this then?"
Man: "It's my Organ Donor's card"
NHS Official: "Rightto... so we've come for your Liver"
Man: "But I'm using it right now!"

after reading it... I would rather the old way. where one Volunteers to donate their organ than one having to sign up to not have their organ's donated.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7186007.stm

Currently you have to sign up to the organ donor register, then when you die hope that your organs are suitable for donation and your family don't act like assholes and stop the NHS taking them. Under a system of presumed consent, as is in Spain, for example, it would be 'presumed' (hence the name, duh) that you want to donate your organs, unless you've said otherwise. Of course, your family can still act like assholes and stop that.

As you may have been able to guess, I would support a change in the system. In fact, I'd go so far as to have my will say that my family gets shit if they try to stop my organs being donated.

So, views? Which system would you prefer?

I'm all for the opt-out system. I wish the US would move in that direction as well.

The idea is absolutely ridiculous.
Organ-harvesters presuming consent to take my liver and other prized parts?
Over my dead body!! :mad:

:p Now I have beer in my nose again. Shouldn't drink while reading this forum.

Seriously, though, being able to control what happens to you after you die is something that most people are deeply invested in, which is why we have wills and funeral parlors. Nightmares of hospital misdeeds aside, why should the government get to assume that you consent to your organs being harvested, when you had plenty of opportunity to volunteer for it and you didn't?

(edit: I'm imperialistically assuming that everywhere with an opt-in system is like where I live: you get asked about it when you get your driver's license, get a state ID, or register to vote, and there are commercials on TV encouraging you to sign up, so every resident knows about signing up because we all watch TV.)

I'm all for it. If people don't want to donate they'll be allowed to refuse it. Though if they do refuse, I think they should go to the absolute bottom of the list if they ever need an organ transplant.

Why should anybody have the right to refuse organ donation, they will be dead they don't need it, it's almost manslaughter.

well, its just sort of polite to let those who need their physical heart to be weighed against a feather be able to opt out.

Is it from drugs, alcohol, tobacco? Well too damn bad, you did it to yourself.

Ah, this sort of person. Well then, should you ever get into a serious accident, I will endeavor to ensure that you will not receive any medical treatment, and be left to bleed to death.

After all, you did it to yourself.

Because, what, people with deformed kidneys are somehow less deserving of life? You've just revealed yourself to be a jackass of the highest order, sir. (And I'm sure my sister in law would be interested to know that she doesn't deserve to live because her kidneys aren't perfect.)

Some people believe that natural selection is not the tool of the devil and believing that sometimes, it's best not to have a very large population (which are often more vulnerable to famines, drouts, and epidemics than smaller, less dense populations). The human race does not need to be 6 billion strong. If we could avoid extinction with a total population below a million without modern technology, we definitely don't need billions now that we have airplanes and computers and whatnot.

I find this "need" to add billions to our 6-billion strong population to be obcessive, almost to the point of a mental disorber. I'm not abvocating nazi crap. There's a difference between accepting that death is a glorious part of nature that doesn't need to be destroyed and just rounding people up and killing them. With death, comes life. Bodies decompose, releasing nutrients into the earth. Plants feed off the nutrients. Animals and people feed off the plants. Other animals and people feed off the previous animals. All die and become plant food. It's the cycle of life. Love it. I SAID LOVE IT, DAMN IT!!! :mad: Love it!

There's a difference between accepting that death is a glorious part of nature that doesn't need to be destroyed and just rounding people up and killing them.

So you will never and have never taken medications, vaccinations, been hospitalized or any form of health altering treatments? Cuts left untreated?

Sorry, this doesn't work. The basic drive of any organism is to live and reproduce, not be complacent when death comes knocking. How this is applied in animals varies from fleeing from danger to eating plants which have medicinal properties.

Accepting death like you said would incidentally include refusing medical treatment if you happen to be shot, or left with fatal wounds. Or for that fact, taken to its logical extreme, refusing to resist someone attempting to end your existing.

Accepting death like you said would incidentally include refusing medical treatment if you happen to be shot, or left with fatal wounds. Or for that fact, taken to its logical extreme, refusing to resist someone attempting to end your existing.

Here's what I say: we should try to allow people to live as long as I want.

There is nothing magical or noble about death; it is an ugly, destructive, and painful process that strips us of our loved ones and costs us untold amounts of accumulated wisdom and learning every single time another person passes away. A human life will always be worth more than the cruel processes of nature; nature is not some kind, gentle soul that wishes to see us reach our fullest potential, it is almost always a cruel and uncaring beast that functions solely on prerogatives completely amoral and devoid of the ethics and value we assign ourselves and those we love. You can "love" nature and its processes all you want, but I can guarantee you it will never give you anything in return for that admiration...all it cares about is that you reproduce and pass on your genes, and it doesn't give a damn what happens to you, your children, or anyone else as long as it happens.

Beyond that, you are nothing more than a disposable biological husk that has already served its purpose and is to be discarded. Everything you love, everything you care about, and everything that matters to you means absolutely nothing to nature. It has one purpose, and that purpose does not care about you beyond its own goals. That's why mankind has always sought to develop and discover things above nature, because examining nature for what it is shows there is no God there.

To forestall that burden and to allow people true freedom over how long they live is to me one of the most noble things anyone could do; it would allow death to become a controlled, truly peaceful process that happens only when the person is ready, if it happens at all. I've seen death, both in person and in various indirect ways throughout my life. It provokes the strongest sense of empathy and anger in me because it is so cruel and so thoughtless; to lift that burden and to give everyone that freedom is something that matters a lot to me and I will be willing to do anything to give people that chance. Honestly, I'd even die if it meant allowing my family and other people to reap that benefit someday...that's how seriously I take the issue.

Is it a necessary evil? Perhaps, but I'd rather take the risk and cast off that evil to as great an extent as possible rather than have to see its tragic effects.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7186007.stm

Currently you have to sign up to the organ donor register, then when you die hope that your organs are suitable for donation and your family don't act like assholes and stop the NHS taking them. Under a system of presumed consent, as is in Spain, for example, it would be 'presumed' (hence the name, duh) that you want to donate your organs, unless you've said otherwise. Of course, your family can still act like assholes and stop that.

As you may have been able to guess, I would support a change in the system. In fact, I'd go so far as to have my will say that my family gets shit if they try to stop my organs being donated.

So, views? Which system would you prefer?

In Italy we have the presumed consent. The family can have a say UNLESS you carry on yourself a statement about your willingness to have your organs explanted (grimfollow, hopefully). If it says yes, it's yes and the family's got to shut up, same goes with no. If there's no statement and no family available, it's presumed consent.

I'd simply modify a couple of things: 1) the family can't have a say. 2) if there's no statement, the hospital's ethical commission decides.

I posted it before on a different thread but it adds UK Transplants views to any such debate so here it is again:


One problem with presumed consent is the risk of causing major distress to a close relative or partner and creating ill-will which would outweigh any advantages in the longer term. If organs were removed and relatives subsequently came forward with objections, the cause of transplantation could suffer adverse publicity, and this could have a major impact on their trust and respect for the medical profession.

There could also be medical risks involved with the removal of organs without discussion with relatives. Families are a valuable source of information about their loved one's previous health and relatives are questioned as part of the screening process.

If an individual does not register an objection, this silence may indicate a lack of understanding rather than an agreement with the policy. It is because of these concerns that in the majority of countries operating an opt-out system, health care professionals still consult the family to establish consent.

Link (http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/newsroom/statements_and_stances/statements/opt_in_or_out.jsp)

Why should anybody have the right to refuse organ donation, they will be dead they don't need it, it's almost manslaughter.

BS. People don't have to jack shit to help other people. I don't want my body mutilated and harvested for my parts once I die. I want my as intact as possible when I'm buried or burned (haven't decided which). Hell, I don't even want an autopsy, but I don't know how I'd get around that...

Because, what, people with deformed kidneys are somehow less deserving of life? You've just revealed yourself to be a jackass of the highest order, sir. (And I'm sure my sister in law would be interested to know that she doesn't deserve to live because her kidneys aren't perfect.)

I'm not saying they deserve to die. I'm just saying its tough luck. Shit happens. People live, people die-sometimes early. I'm glad she found a way around it, though.

Here's what I say: we should try to allow people to live as long as I want.

There is nothing magical or noble about death; it is an ugly, destructive, and painful process that strips us of our loved ones and costs us untold amounts of accumulated wisdom and learning every single time another person passes away. A human life will always be worth more than the cruel processes of nature; nature is not some kind, gentle soul that wishes to see us reach our fullest potential, it is almost always a cruel and uncaring beast that functions solely on prerogatives completely amoral and devoid of the ethics and value we assign ourselves and those we love. You can "love" nature and its processes all you want, but I can guarantee you it will never give you anything in return for that admiration...all it cares about is that you reproduce and pass on your genes, and it doesn't give a damn what happens to you, your children, or anyone else as long as it happens.

Beyond that, you are nothing more than a disposable biological husk that has already served its purpose and is to be discarded. Everything you love, everything you care about, and everything that matters to you means absolutely nothing to nature. It has one purpose, and that purpose does not care about you beyond its own goals. That's why mankind has always sought to develop and discover things above nature, because examining nature for what it is shows there is no God there.

To forestall that burden and to allow people true freedom over how long they live is to me one of the most noble things anyone could do; it would allow death to become a controlled, truly peaceful process that happens only when the person is ready, if it happens at all. I've seen death, both in person and in various indirect ways throughout my life. It provokes the strongest sense of empathy and anger in me because it is so cruel and so thoughtless; to lift that burden and to give everyone that freedom is something that matters a lot to me and I will be willing to do anything to give people that chance. Honestly, I'd even die if it meant allowing my family and other people to reap that benefit someday...that's how seriously I take the issue.

Is it a necessary evil? Perhaps, but I'd rather take the risk and cast off that evil to as great an extent as possible rather than have to see its tragic effects.

?

Death happens. That's life. Everything that ever lives, dies. That is a fact, and will always remain a fact. The quest for immortality, or extreme life extension is pure folly, as well as selfish, for the old must always make way for the new.

Plus, the world couldn't handle and ever consuming, growing, immortal (or extremely long lived) population. Let death run its course.

I've had people close to me die. It is rough. But you must remember those who are no longer with you and cherish their memory.



@ Non aligned states: So if I get hit by a drunk driver, that's my fault? Or if I get stabbed by a mugger? Or hit by lighting? Not all people cause the accidents they're in. IF I did cause an accident, by all means, attend to anyone I injured, but I've never caused an accident, so I'm not too worried.

I don't want my body mutilated and harvested for my parts once I die.

Why not?


I want my as intact as possible when I'm buried or burned (haven't decided which). Hell, I don't even want an autopsy, but I don't know how I'd get around that...
Why?

Why not?


Why?

Why don't I want to be mutilated? Because its disrespectful? Its disgusting?

Same goes for the autopsy. They literally rip you apart. Plus all the damn stuff that goes into embalming- disgusting. Just put in the ground, or burn me. Don't rip me apart first.

Here in the States the government has a long and proud tradition of losing -- or "losing" -- important records.So does ours, here in the UK...

people would be concerned that they'd fill out all the right forms and then their organs would be harvested anyway.
Here, too.

Personally I'm signed up to be a donor, but I understand why some of my fellow-citizens don't trust our institutions.
Same here.

Hell, I don't even want an autopsy, but I don't know how I'd get around that...

I'm fairly certain you can avoid an autopsy simply by making it clear in a will (or maybe a living will, I'm not completely certain) that you don't want one. Unless there is a criminal investigation into your death (and maybe even then), legal documentation stating that you do not wish to be autopsied should be recognized.

Same goes for the autopsy. They literally rip you apart. Plus all the damn stuff that goes into embalming- disgusting. Just put in the ground, or burn me. Don't rip me apart first.

Do you believe you will be around to witness it ?
And is being eating by worms and maggots truly so much less disgusting than being used to save the lives of others ?

I'm fairly certain you can avoid an autopsy simply by making it clear in a will (or maybe a living will, I'm not completely certain) that you don't want one. Unless there is a criminal investigation into your death (and maybe even then), legal documentation stating that you do not wish to be autopsied should be recognized.

Really? Good to know.

Of course, your family can still act like assholes and stop that.

I believe you can, in the worst case scenario, carry a legal document drawn up by your solicitor in order to prevent this happening.

Thats what we were told to tell people when they called the Organ Donor Line asking about that issue

I'm fairly certain you can avoid an autopsy simply by making it clear in a will (or maybe a living will, I'm not completely certain) that you don't want one. Unless there is a criminal investigation into your death (and maybe even then), legal documentation stating that you do not wish to be autopsied should be recognized.

I'm not sure about the requirements in the US but in the UK they're as follows:

A medicolegal (coroner's) autopsy will be requested in these circumstances:

All unattended deaths (where the doctor has not seen the patient within 14 days)
Unknown cause of death
Unidentified deceased
Unnatural or potentially unnatural deaths.

Link (http://student.bmj.com/issues/07/01/life/36.php)

Do you believe you will be around to witness it ?
And is being eating by worms and maggots truly so much less disgusting than being used to save the lives of others ?


Yes, I'd rather be eaten by maggots after I die than have my body ripped apart by a bunch of greedy ass doctors salivating for the chance to harvest me. I've made this clear: I don't want my body desecrated by people once I'm dead.

Why don't I want to be mutilated? Because its disrespectful? Its disgusting?

I can understand why you wouldn't want your body used without your consent. But why would it be mutilation if you consented to have your organs donated? Why would it be disrespectful IF you consented?

I'm not trying to be an ass, here, I'm trying to understand your thought process.

Do you feel that it is inherently disrespectful to cut up the human body, no matter what?

Do you feel that it is mutilation if a living person chooses to donate an organ?

Do you feel that it is mutilation if an organ is removed from a dead person, no matter what the circumstances?


Same goes for the autopsy. They literally rip you apart. Plus all the damn stuff that goes into embalming- disgusting. Just put in the ground, or burn me. Don't rip me apart first.
Open heart surgery is fucking gross. They rip open your ribcage and start cutting away.

Childbirth is disgusting as hell. The baby will literally rip its way out of the woman's vagina, often tearing the entire area down to the anus. Unless, of course, the doctors decide to rip open the woman's abdomen surgically. Also there is lots of mucus involved.

My point is that lots of things are gross, but that doesn't mean they're bad. I can understand why you'd think autopsies are gross. What I'm not understanding is why you think their grossness makes them bad.

It would be nice to have a say about who gets your organs... Far too many idiots out there. I wonder if it would be feasable to write up a legal document that says the recepient of the donated organ must meet certain criteria? I am thinking along the lines of a minimum IQ score.

It would be nice to have a say about who gets your organs... Far too many idiots out there. I wonder if it would be feasable to write up a legal document that says the recepient of the donated organ must meet certain criteria? I am thinking along the lines of a minimum IQ score.
Yeah, it seems lame that I can choose who gets my stereo when I die, but I can't specify who can have my lungs.

It would be nice to have a say about who gets your organs... Far too many idiots out there. I wonder if it would be feasable to write up a legal document that says the recepient of the donated organ must meet certain criteria? I am thinking along the lines of a minimum IQ score.

It's not accepted

It would be nice to have a say about who gets your organs... Far too many idiots out there. I wonder if it would be feasable to write up a legal document that says the recepient of the donated organ must meet certain criteria? I am thinking along the lines of a minimum IQ score.

I am afraid a general list of qualifications is out (partly due to people stating "no ****** will get MY organs !") . If someone receives an organ or not is treated as a medical decision and is as such solely based on medical criteria.

With one notable exception: several countries do allow you to specify a specific person, provided that person is a familymember or friend (and no, that person being willing to pay $ 100.000 for your organ does not make him/her a friend in the eyes of the law) and your organs are compatible.

I am afraid a general list of qualifications is out (partly due to people stating "no ****** will get MY organs !") . If someone receives an organ or not is treated as a medical decision and is as such solely based on medical criteria.

I know that this is how things work right now, but why should this be?

We let people say, "No ****** will get MY money!" when they write their will, so why shouldn't they have the same freedom to be a jackass when it comes to their organs?

I can understand why you wouldn't want your body used without your consent. But why would it be mutilation if you consented to have your organs donated? Why would it be disrespectful IF you consented?

I'm not trying to be an ass, here, I'm trying to understand your thought process.

Do you feel that it is inherently disrespectful to cut up the human body, no matter what?

Do you feel that it is mutilation if a living person chooses to donate an organ?

Do you feel that it is mutilation if an organ is removed from a dead person, no matter what the circumstances?


Open heart surgery is fucking gross. They rip open your ribcage and start cutting away.

Childbirth is disgusting as hell. The baby will literally rip its way out of the woman's vagina, often tearing the entire area down to the anus. Unless, of course, the doctors decide to rip open the woman's abdomen surgically. Also there is lots of mucus involved.

My point is that lots of things are gross, but that doesn't mean they're bad. I can understand why you'd think autopsies are gross. What I'm not understanding is why you think their grossness makes them bad.

Point taken.

Yes, I think it is still mutilated a body, treating it as a commodity when organs are taken out once a person dies, even if a person consents. (I'd never consent, by the way)

Its not disrespectful for surgeries, though I'd think long and hard before I'd have surgery. If I can't live on my own, without help, maybe there's a reason for it.

If I live person chooses to donate it could still be called mutilation, but more power to the person donating. I'd only do it for a family member or close friend.

That help any?

Yes, I'd rather be eaten by maggots after I die than have my body ripped apart by a bunch of greedy ass doctors salivating for the chance to harvest me. I've made this clear: I don't want my body desecrated by people once I'm dead.

Greedy ass doctors, eh? You ever met a transplant surgeon?

I know that this is how things work right now, but why should this be?

We let people say, "No ****** will get MY money!" when they write their will, so why shouldn't they have the same freedom to be a jackass when it comes to their organs?

Good question actually. It is not like a few dollars donated to Africa would save less lives than a heart...

Point taken.

Yes, I think it is still mutilated a body, treating it as a commodity when organs are taken out once a person dies, even if a person consents. (I'd never consent, by the way)

It is certainly a thorny ethical issue to figure out how organs should be handled. They are, after all, body parts. They are also a commodity, whether or not we like that fact, and they are a commodity which is in extremely high demand.

However, this does not mean they must be treated like any commodity. Indeed, I'd say that organ recipients generally regard donor organs with more respect than even their original owners did, mainly because if you've been on a transplant list for years you will have spend a fuckton of your time thinking about what the organ really means to you. Very few healthy people will spend years meditating on the importance of their renal system, after all.


Its not disrespectful for surgeries, though I'd think long and hard before I'd have surgery. If I can't live on my own, without help, maybe there's a reason for it.

So why the difference?

If I choose to donate an organ and I continue living after the donation, it's not disrespectful, but if I choose to donate an organ knowing I will be dead, then it is disrespectful?


If I live person chooses to donate it could still be called mutilation, but more power to the person donating. I'd only do it for a family member or close friend.
Technically speaking, just about any alteration to the human body could be called mutilation. I'm asking why you think consensual organ donation is mutilation.


That help any?
Yes, some. As you can see I am still asking questions, but I appreciate your willingness to answer.

For what it's worth, some of these issues are things I still debate with myself. I work in a medical center and have an office located directly across the hall from the gross anatomy lab. Every so often I will be working at my desk and they'll wheel a gurney of corpses past my door.

I listen to the med students chattering in the hallway before lab, knowing that they're about to go cut into dead human bodies, and I listen to them chatter as they exit the lab.

Sometimes it bothers me when I hear kids coming out of that lab yammering about how drunk they got last weekend. Something about that seems disrespectful to me. On the other hand, the bodies are dead. They can't feel anything or think anything or be angry or hurt or embarrassed. The lab is supervised by several medical professionals who ensure that all ethical considerations are observed regarding the treatment of the cadavers. Why should I resent students for having lives of their own? Why should I object to them having the same conversations they'd have before and after any other lab?

I listen to the med students chattering in the hallway before lab, knowing that they're about to go cut into dead human bodies, and I listen to them chatter as they exit the lab.

Sometimes it bothers me when I hear kids coming out of that lab yammering about how drunk they got last weekend. Something about that seems disrespectful to me. On the other hand, the bodies are dead. They can't feel anything or think anything or be angry or hurt or embarrassed. The lab is supervised by several medical professionals who ensure that all ethical considerations are observed regarding the treatment of the cadavers. Why should I resent students for having lives of their own? Why should I object to them having the same conversations they'd have before and after any other lab?

I'm guilty of this but my personal view is that it's not disrespectful for me to talk in such a way when around cadavers. As long as i'm working to the best of my ability and learning as much as I can from my cadaver i'm being respectful of the donation they made so that I could learn.

@ Non aligned states: So if I get hit by a drunk driver, that's my fault? Or if I get stabbed by a mugger? Or hit by lighting?


Damn straight. You were conveniently in a place to get killed. You're as much as fault as those who were born with or have failing organs, and deserve to have as much help you would assign them.

In other words, you should be left to die. It follows your moral code after all.

The weak, and the unlucky, will perish. Yourself included. Just the way you want it.


Not all people cause the accidents they're in.

So? Not all people who need organs cause the situation that makes them need a transplant. But you want them to die. Well guess what? I'm going to apply that logic to you too. The moment you have something that can kill you, you don't get any sort of aid to prevent you from becoming another husk of dead matter.

Damn straight. You were conveniently in a place to get killed. You're as much as fault as those who were born with or have failing organs, and deserve to have as much help you would assign them.

In other words, you should be left to die. It follows your moral code after all.

The weak, and the unlucky, will perish. Yourself included. Just the way you want it.



So? Not all people who need organs cause the situation that makes them need a transplant. But you want them to die. Well guess what? I'm going to apply that logic to you too. The moment you have something that can kill you, you don't get any sort of aid to prevent you from becoming another husk of dead matter.

Haha, fine.

Bring it on then. I'll take whatever you throw at me. (just not AIDS or super AIDS, please).

Edit: @bottle: I guess consensual could be mutilation in a strict sense, but since the donor wanted it, its fine. Though using organs from the dead is just repulsive.

So why the difference?

If I choose to donate an organ and I continue living after the donation, it's not disrespectful, but if I choose to donate an organ knowing I will be dead, then it is disrespectful?

Personally, I would find it disrespectful if they didn't make the best use of my body possible. I hope to have usable organs when I die, and I want them to be donated. Science can have any other useful parts. If there's much left to cremate, they've done it all wrong, as far as I'm concerned.

Personally, I would find it disrespectful if they didn't make the best use of my body possible. I hope to have usable organs when I die, and I want them to be donated. Science can have any other useful parts. If there's much left to cremate, they've done it all wrong, as far as I'm concerned.
My feelings are pretty similar. I think it would be nice to have some remains left for my family to bury or scatter or whatever they'd like to do, since I want my loved ones to feel like they got the closure they wanted, but hopefully a lot of my body parts can be used to help others. I like the idea of my heart continuing to beat for somebody else after I'm dead, or my corneas helping somebody else to see, or anything really. I find it amazing and wonderful that we are able to share parts in that way.

But a presumption is a pretty dangerous thing to act upon, isn't it? I'm sure many people wouldn't mind donating any useful organs after death, which is fair enough, but if you want to do so what is so hard about joining a register? Some people may want their bodies to be untouched and nothing taken from them, which is also fair enough. It's their body, and therefore their choice. The easiest way to make sure that the end result you request is carried out is to declare it either way, by signing a register, and awaring your family of the fact you have done so, or not signing the register, which therefore acts a signal of intent that you do not wish to donate your organs. Easy!

There's no need for a 'presumed consent' system because the current one is just so easy. It seems from the replies on this board that enough people are willing to become organ donors, so all I see this proposal as being is a removal of red tape for doctors. (And before you ask, I am more than happy for my organs, assuming they have any use, to be donated to others who need them).

I'm sure many people wouldn't mind donating any useful organs after death, which is fair enough, but if you want to do so what is so hard about joining a register? Some people may want their bodies to be untouched and nothing taken from them, which is also fair enough. It's their body, and therefore their choice. The easiest way to make sure that the end result you request is carried out is to declare it either way, by signing a register, and awaring your family of the fact you have done so, or not signing the register, which therefore acts a signal of intent that you do not wish to donate your organs.

Your argument is self defeating because it can be so easily swapped around. Yes, people have a right to not donate organs after death. Signing a form is not at all a difficulty or inconvenience. The easist way to make sure that the ned result you request is carried out is to declare it either way, by signing a form and telling your family of the fact that you have done so, or not signing the form, which therefore acts as a signal of intent that you do wish to donate your organs.

The problem is the argument is almost entirely self defeating because it comes in two prongs:

1) that people shouldn't have the choice made for them
2) that deciding to donate is an easy process

If the process is so damned easy, then really nobody is being "decided for", the only way someone would act against your wishes is if you couldn't be bothered enough to sign a form. And if you're too damned lazy to take 30 seconds out of your life to keep your precious organs inside your rotting corpse..you obviously don't care about it enough for me to give a damn.

I think it's a perfect self selecting machine. If you are so indifferent that you can't sign a piece of paper, then you obviously don't care.

Your argument is self defeating because it can be so easily swapped around. Yes, people have a right to not donate organs after death. Signing a form is not at all a difficulty or inconvenience. The easist way to make sure that the ned result you request is carried out is to declare it either way, by signing a form and telling your family of the fact that you have done so, or not signing the form, which therefore acts as a signal of intent that you do wish to donate your organs.

The problem is the argument is almost entirely self defeating because it comes in two prongs:

1) that people shouldn't have the choice made for them
2) that deciding to donate is an easy process

If the process is so damned easy, then really nobody is being "decided for", the only way someone would act against your wishes is if you couldn't be bothered enough to sign a form. And if you're too damned lazy to take 30 seconds out of your life to keep your precious organs inside your rotting corpse..you obviously don't care about it enough for me to give a damn.

I think it's a perfect self selecting machine. If you are so indifferent that you can't sign a piece of paper, then you obviously don't care.
Indeed.

"Presumed consent" isn't about forcing anybody to donate organs against their wishes. It's primarily about what happens to the organs of people who are indifferent on the subject. As it stands (at least in my country), we throw those organs away. I see that as a horrible waste. Those are lives that could be saved.

With presumed consent, you're still free to say that you don't want to donate. And people who want to donate are still free to donate. The only real change happens for those people who don't particularly care, or who can't be bothered to think about it. Their organs can be put to use instead of being thrown away. I think that's good.

More to fact, we act on presumptions in society all the time. Patients brought in unconcious into the emergency room are presumed to want treatment. Parents have the legal right to presume certain things about their childrens' desires. People are presumed to be incapable of operating a motor vehicle safely, until they demonstrate that they are. Prisoners on trial are presumed competant to stand trail, unless they demonstrate that they are not.

We make presumptions on a legal basis about people all the time, and require them to rebut those presumptions, or have us treat them in a certain way. To argue that it's somehow "wrong" to make presumptions is to argue that we should let any person who wants to jump in a car and drive around, until they prove themselves incapable of driving by killing somebody.

But a presumption is a pretty dangerous thing to act upon, isn't it? I'm sure many people wouldn't mind donating any useful organs after death, which is fair enough, but if you want to do so what is so hard about joining a register?

Is it hard? Of course not. But it does take some effort, which means that most people who simply don't mind won't do it. Those who are adamant that their organs be used will join. Those who are adamant that their organs not be used will make sure of that. But what of the people who simply don't care enough to take any action? Those are the source of the increased number of organs in an opt-out system.

Some people may want their bodies to be untouched and nothing taken from them, which is also fair enough. It's their body, and therefore their choice. The easiest way to make sure that the end result you request is carried out is to declare it either way, by signing a register, and awaring your family of the fact you have done so, or not signing the register, which therefore acts a signal of intent that you do not wish to donate your organs. Easy!

...except for the fact that not signing up does not mean that you have any problem with donating your organs.

There's no need for a 'presumed consent' system because the current one is just so easy. It seems from the replies on this board that enough people are willing to become organ donors, so all I see this proposal as being is a removal of red tape for doctors. (And before you ask, I am more than happy for my organs, assuming they have any use, to be donated to others who need them).

The current one may be easy but - again - the people who don't care much either way (or just don't want to think about it) don't sign up, whether they want their organs to be used or not. An opt-out system would be just as easy, and would result in more organs in the system.

The only real change happens for those people who don't particularly care, or who can't be bothered to think about it. Their organs can be put to use instead of being thrown away. I think that's good.

Which, as I said, to me, is fine, because if you don't particularly care enough to sign a form, this obviously isn't something you feel strong enough about to justify letting other people die for your indifference.

Though using organs from the dead is just repulsive.

Unless your society's customs dictate that your body be preserved and mounted on the wall, I can predict a fate for your organs just as gruesome as recycling - either a rapid roasting before becoming a mantlepiece ornament or scattered to the winds, or as nourishment for insect larvae.

I don't mind if people want to use my organs after I'm dead as I have little need for them. I'm far more concerned with dying than what happens afterwards.

Which, as I said, to me, is fine, because if you don't particularly care enough to sign a form, this obviously isn't something you feel strong enough about to justify letting other people die for your indifference.
Exactly.

using organs from the dead is just repulsive.
Can you explain why you find this to be so, or is it just an "ick" thing? Also, is it just human organs that you find repulsive once their original body has died?

Can you explain why you find this to be so? or is it just an "ick" thing? Also, is it just human organs that you find repulsive once their original body has died?

It is disgusting. Do you want someones else's organ in you? I sure as hell don't. And I don't want my organs in someone else's body. It's also quite ghoulish, harvesting dead people for organs. Seems like something straight of of horror movie, or a dark sci-fi movie. Like that race is Star Trek Voyager that goes around and harvests people's organs because their race is dying or something.

A live person donating is not as disgusting, but still pretty gross, and like I said, I would only consider donating something to a family member, or friend. If you're a stranger then you're shit out of luck.

I'll take that as an "ick", then.

It's very hard to know what my reaction would be to receiving an organ from someone. However, given that such a transplant would only be performed if it was the best way to keep me alive and functioning, and given what seems to be a complete lack of "ick" response from me when I consider it, I'm reasonably sure that I'd have absolutely no problem with it.

I don't really see it as being anything like Star Trek or any other sci-fi/horror, dark or otherwise, and find it a little disappointing that there are people who evidently use such parallels to shape their own opinions on it.

Well, there is more to it than that. I talked about it earlier in the thread. The horror/ sci fi reference was hyperbole.

It is disgusting. Do you want someones else's organ in you? I sure as hell don't. And I don't want my organs in someone else's body. It's also quite ghoulish, harvesting dead people for organs. Seems like something straight of of horror movie, or a dark sci-fi movie. Like that race is Star Trek Voyager that goes around and harvests people's organs because their race is dying or something.

A live person donating is not as disgusting, but still pretty gross, and like I said, I would only consider donating something to a family member, or friend. If you're a stranger then you're shit out of luck.
I guess this must be a personal thing. I don't find it disgusting or horrifying at all. I find it amazing that we can transplant organs in this manner. I think it's a wonderful advance, and if I ever needed an organ transplant I would feel extremely lucky to live in a time and place where such a procedure is possible. I would also be happy to know my organs were being used after I died. If a loved one needed a kidney or whatever and I could donate it to them, I would be happy to be able to to so because I would rather give up a bit of my body than have to give up one of my loved ones.

I also see nothing "ghoulish" about taking organs from dead bodies; rather, I am disturbed by the idea of throwing away perfectly good life-saving organs when there are so many who need them. To me, it is ghoulish to value the integrity of a dead body more than one values the life of a living person.

The only thing that would horrify me is if organs were being taken from unwilling people.

The idea of having somebody else's organ inside me is definitely a bit odd. I don't know how I'd feel about that. But the idea of somebody else having one of my organs after I die is really cool to me. I would actually be sad if it turned out that none of my organs or body parts could be donated when I die.

It is disgusting. Do you want someones else's organ in you? I sure as hell don't. And I don't want my organs in someone else's body. It's also quite ghoulish, harvesting dead people for organs. Seems like something straight of of horror movie, or a dark sci-fi movie. Like that race is Star Trek Voyager that goes around and harvests people's organs because their race is dying or something.

A live person donating is not as disgusting, but still pretty gross, and like I said, I would only consider donating something to a family member, or friend. If you're a stranger then you're shit out of luck.
I'll take that as an "ick", then.

It's very hard to know what my reaction would be to receiving an organ from someone. However, given that such a transplant would only be performed if it was the best way to keep me alive and functioning, and given what seems to be a complete lack of "ick" response from me when I consider it, I'm reasonably sure that I'd have absolutely no problem with it.

I don't really see it as being anything like Star Trek or any other sci-fi/horror, dark or otherwise, and find it a little disappointing that there are people who evidently use such parallels to shape their own opinions on it.

I guess this must be a personal thing. I don't find it disgusting or horrifying at all. I find it amazing that we can transplant organs in this manner. I think it's a wonderful advance, and if I ever needed an organ transplant I would feel extremely lucky to live in a time and place where such a procedure is possible. I would also be happy to know my organs were being used after I died. If a loved one needed a kidney or whatever and I could donate it to them, I would be happy to be able to to so because I would rather give up a bit of my body than have to give up one of my loved ones.

I also see nothing "ghoulish" about taking organs from dead bodies; rather, I am disturbed by the idea of throwing away perfectly good life-saving organs when there are so many who need them. To me, it is ghoulish to value the integrity of a dead body more than one values the life of a living person.

The only thing that would horrify me is if organs were being taken from unwilling people.

That is fair enough.

We just have totally differing opinions. It is pretty amazing that transplants can be done, yes, but I don't like them. I don't know why people want to give away pieces of themselves when they die. I am disturbed by the whole process of taking organs, even from willing people, and putting them in someone else. I'll never take an organ, and most likely will never give one.

If other people want to, fine. Just don't pressure others into giving their organs if they don't want to, and especially don't pressure families into after they lose a loved one. That's just pouring salt on a wound.

It is disgusting. Do you want someones else's organ in you?

I'd prefer my own, simply for the fact that I don't need to be on a life time of immuno-suppressants.

But I, like most normal, rational people, do not personalize my organs. I haven't named my heart. I do not make up little lifestyle stories for my kidneys. I didn't feel bad for my appendix when it got sick.

And I wouldn't feel jealous if my liver lived with someone else before we met.

My organs are muscle and tissue that do a job. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't anthropromorphize them and don't particularly care where they came from, only that they're doing what they're supposed to do.

Seems like something straight of of horror movie, or a dark sci-fi movie. Like that race is Star Trek Voyager that goes around and harvests people's organs because their race is dying or something.

Yes, because using still viable tissue from a body after a person has died is exactly like some creepy scifi movie.

Because saving people's lives is wrong because...well, it's just gross, and why can't those dying people have the courtesy of having acceptable illnesses that don't require such messy things to cure.

Have they no respect for the rest of us?

If other people want to, fine. Just don't pressure others into giving their organs if they don't want to, and especially don't pressure families into after they lose a loved one. That's just pouring salt on a wound.

Asking doesn't necessarily require pressurising not to mention permitting donation of a loved ones organs following their death can actually be beneficial to the grieving process for some people

I'd prefer my own, simply for the fact that I don't need to be on a life time of immuno-suppressants.

But I, like most normal, rational people, do not personalize my organs. I haven't named my heart. I do not make up little lifestyle stories for my kidneys. I didn't feel bad for my appendix when it got sick.

And I wouldn't feel jealous if my liver lived with someone else before we met.

My organs are muscle and tissue that do a job. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't anthropromorphize them and don't particularly care where they came from, only that they're doing what they're supposed to do.



Yes, because using still viable tissue from a body after a person has died is exactly like some creepy scifi movie.

Because saving people's lives is wrong because...well, it's just gross, and why can't those dying people have the courtesy of having acceptable illnesses that don't require such messy things to cure.

Have they no respect for the rest of us?

Ha. You don't ever feel bad for liver and kidneys after a night drinking? Or for you lungs when you smoke too many cigs? Or for you body after a over-exerting it?

And I do care where my organs come from. I want my own organs, not someone else's. And by the time if I'm old enough to need a transplant, I'll probably just let myself die, or go die doing something crazy before I'm bedridden.

Also, maybe they shouldn't be saved...as I said before. Maybe it's their time to go. Maybe this obsession with making more and more people, who live longer and longer lives will bite us in the ass in the not so distant future? People die. Its sad (when a loved one dies). But people move on, eventually. That is life. Accept it.

Ha. You don't ever feel bad for liver and kidneys after a night drinking? Or for you lungs when you smoke too many cigs? Or for you body after a over-exerting it?

And I do care where my organs come from. I want my own organs, not someone else's. And by the time if I'm old enough to need a transplant, I'll probably just let myself die, or go die doing something crazy before I'm bedridden.Why do you have such an attachment to your organs, it's not like their static objects. The liver you have now is not the same liver you had a couple years ago. It's just that it changes slowly rather than suddenly. I can understand an attachment in so far as you don't want to damage your organs or body, but to the extent that you are attached to them strikes me as odd. After all, it's not like you've kept all your baby teeth and your hair clippings and the dust you pick up when you vacuum the carpet.

Also, maybe they shouldn't be saved...as I said before. Maybe it's their time to go. Maybe this obsession with making more and more people, who live longer and longer lives will bite us in the ass in the not so distant future? People die. Its sad (when a loved one dies). But people move on, eventually. That is life. Accept it.Pfft, belief in fate is for the weak. No one should die just because someone else thinks that it's their time to go or is too afraid to intervene. Besides, the vast majority of us probably wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for modern medicine. Maybe it was your fate to just be another infant mortality statistic, but modern medicine intervened to stop that.

...

your position on this seems even less well thought out than most of your other not-so-well thought out positions. but maybe i'm just confused - what is your argument beyond 'ewwwww!' and a generalized commitment to letting people die when they don't have to?

Ha. You don't ever feel bad for liver and kidneys after a night drinking? Or for you lungs when you smoke too many cigs? Or for you body after a over-exerting it?

No I don't feel bad "for my liver". I don't feel bad "for my lungs". I don't sympathize for my poor liver trying to metabolize the alchohol I drank. I don't feel sorry for them.

Certain activities may cause my body to hurt, but to empathize with innatimate objects is like feeling bad for my shoes after my cat threw up in them. It's nonsensical.

Ha. You don't ever feel bad for liver and kidneys after a night drinking? Or for you lungs when you smoke too many cigs? Or for you body after a over-exerting it?

What does this have to do with anything?


And I do care where my organs come from. I want my own organs, not someone else's. And by the time if I'm old enough to need a transplant, I'll probably just let myself die, or go die doing something crazy before I'm bedridden.

That's your choice, obviously, but I think that if you found yourself needing a transplant tomorrow you would change your tune.


Also, maybe they shouldn't be saved...as I said before. Maybe it's their time to go.

"Maybe" is a pathetic cop-out here.

If you think people should die instead of getting a transplant, have the guts to say so. If you don't think that, then don't pull this bullshit cowardly hinting crap.


Maybe this obsession with making more and more people, who live longer and longer lives will bite us in the ass in the not so distant future? People die. Its sad (when a loved one dies). But people move on, eventually. That is life. Accept it.
And thus you will doubtless refuse all medical care for yourself, right? No medicines to help you when you are ill, no blood transfusions if you're in an accident, no surgeries if you are injured or develop cancer or whatever. You will accept that it is your time to die and will happily allow the inevitable to proceed. Right?

i am a blood donor (at least i am helping someone who needs it)

and when i die, i told my family that i will donate my organs to help someone.
so it a good idea

I am a citizen of the United Kingdom. This state in the last 10 years, particularly, has eroded and diminished the rights of the citizen. I have already volunteered to donate my organs on death. I am, however, resolutely opposed to a presumed consent. If it were my wish, for whatever reason, not to have my organs donated, then, as it is my body, my wishes should be upheld. It is not the function of the state to override the rights of the citizen, where that citizen has not broken any law, or breached any moral code.

I don't care, so long as I'm able to opt out.

I am a citizen of the United Kingdom. This state in the last 10 years, particularly, has eroded and diminished the rights of the citizen. I have already volunteered to donate my organs on death. I am, however, resolutely opposed to a presumed consent. If it were my wish, for whatever reason, not to have my organs donated, then, as it is my body, my wishes should be upheld. It is not the function of the state to override the rights of the citizen, where that citizen has not broken any law, or breached any moral code.

Who says they wouldn't be upheld?

All that's being said is that you would need to formally declare them if you don't want to donate

I am a citizen of the United Kingdom. This state in the last 10 years, particularly, has eroded and diminished the rights of the citizen. I have already volunteered to donate my organs on death. I am, however, resolutely opposed to a presumed consent. If it were my wish, for whatever reason, not to have my organs donated, then, as it is my body, my wishes should be upheld. It is not the function of the state to override the rights of the citizen, where that citizen has not broken any law, or breached any moral code.

You'd have a point, if you could point out to me at what point any person who does not want his organs donated would be stopped from making that desire known, and prevent his organs to be donated.

What part of this violates his ability to choose?

Anybody? Bueler? Bueler?

I think you are missing my point. It can not be just for the state to remove organs from a dead body, unless that person has, during life, given consent. I have given my consent but if any citizen, for whatever reason, does not wish to do so, then that should be the end of the matter. Why should any person be obliged to sign a form to refuse consent. After all Burke and Hare were hanged for grave robbery. Is the state taking organs without specific consent, not the same?

I think you are missing my point. It can not be just for the state to remove organs from a dead body, unless that person has, during life, given consent.

I absolutly agree, ones organs should not be reomoved without consent. And by failing to take simple efforts to have your position noted, you have implicitly granted consent

Where does the power of the state end? A donation means exactly what it says-----a gift. If I choose, for whatever reason, not to give , I should not have to explain myself, or, most importantly, take any action. If I choose to opt in, that is my choice. If I do not so choose, I should not be obliged to take any action.

Presuming consent for organ donation is just as dumb as presuming people want emergency treatment at an accident. To avoid the risk of accidentally treating people who don't want it, paramedics should go through everyone's pockets whenever they turn up to an incident. No NHS card, no treatment - everybody's happy!

Sure there are bound to be occasional mistakes: but surely better (in both cases) to err on the side of letting a few people die by mistake, rather than on the side of accidentally causing offence by trying to guess what people want in situations where it's not clear.

Why do you have such an attachment to your organs, it's not like their static objects. The liver you have now is not the same liver you had a couple years ago. It's just that it changes slowly rather than suddenly. I can understand an attachment in so far as you don't want to damage your organs or body, but to the extent that you are attached to them strikes me as odd. After all, it's not like you've kept all your baby teeth and your hair clippings and the dust you pick up when you vacuum the carpet.

Pfft, belief in fate is for the weak. No one should die just because someone else thinks that it's their time to go or is too afraid to intervene. Besides, the vast majority of us probably wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for modern medicine. Maybe it was your fate to just be another infant mortality statistic, but modern medicine intervened to stop that.

Well, most people, I assume like their bodies intact? My liver may change over time, but its mine. And that's what counts.

Actually I have never been very sick. A cold here and there, a stomach virus, a bit of allergies, 1 broken bone, cuts and bruises, maybe a ear infection or something when I was a baby, but that's about it. Yes, I did take some antibiotics a few times when I was younger, but I haven't taken any medicine besides Advil in years. So no, I don't think I just a statistic that never haven't because of medicine.

@ Bottle again
I'm in no need for a transplant, and no one in my family has had a transplant. So I'm not worried about it. Now, maybe if suddenly I did need a transplant in the next few years, maybe I would want to get one. But, 30+ years down the line? I'll just wing it.

Ok, fine, I've been over this. I don't think people should get transplants. Period.

And again, I haven't needed a doctor in years, and I'm healthy now. I don't need doctors.

@Free Soviets:
What is not thought out? I said I find transplants 'icky', for one, will allow genetic problems to persist, and that taking people's organs if they don't sign a form is wrong.



Anyways. Back to a solution, since transplants will probably stay. How about an online form where you state yes or no, and then you can be mailed a card saying which you prefer? Maybe you could renew it every 5 years or so, just in case you change your mind. That's sounds pretty fair- that the 'yays' and the 'nays' both have to fill out forms. Plus, you could still do it at the DMV, and maybe hospitals and doctor's offices if you wanted.

Where does the power of the state end? A donation means exactly what it says-----a gift. If I choose, for whatever reason, not to give , I should not have to explain myself, or, most importantly, take any action. If I choose to opt in, that is my choice. If I do not so choose, I should not be obliged to take any action.

And what if you simply don't care? Is there any reason, then, that your organs should not be used to save lives?

I absolutly agree, ones organs should not be reomoved without consent. And by failing to take simple efforts to have your position noted, you have implicitly granted consent

No, you haven't.

I agree with you Dunroaming.

Where does the power of the state end? A donation means exactly what it says-----a gift. If I choose, for whatever reason, not to give , I should not have to explain myself, or, most importantly, take any action. If I choose to opt in, that is my choice. If I do not so choose, I should not be obliged to take any action.

The altruistic nature of organ donation doesn't end in a presumed consent system.

You don't have to explain your reasons for not donating either in a presumed consent system

Finally I see no reason why you shouldn't have to take any action. Do you have a reason for this belief?

Nice irony Arh-Cull.
But where does state presumption end? If the state wishes to tax everyone at 100% should each citizen have to write in beforehand to object?

Where does the power of the state end? A donation means exactly what it says-----a gift. If I choose, for whatever reason, not to give , I should not have to explain myself, or, most importantly, take any action. If I choose to opt in, that is my choice. If I do not so choose, I should not be obliged to take any action.

if your argument is purely a linguistic one, and one not of any substance, I'm sure we can rephrase "donation. Moreover, I find that "I simply took no action" as an excuse to let people die, is not adequate. I have very big problems with that

If you're willing to be so damned selfish that you will let people die in order to preserve the integrity of your cold dead corpse, then at least have the honesty and integrity to take some action and admit that you're a self asshole who cares more about your dead body than four living ones.

if your argument is purely a linguistic one, and one not of any substance, I'm sure we can rephrase "donation. Moreover, I find that "I simply took no action" as an excuse to let people die, is not adequate. I have very big problems with that

If you're willing to be so damned selfish that you will let people die in order to preserve the integrity of your cold dead corpse, then at least have the honesty and integrity to take some action and admit that you're a self asshole who cares more about your dead body than four living ones.

Not donating is not killing people. People have no right to other people's organs. They have no right to expect help from others. If others are willing to give help, great. If not, well, better hope cloning or something comes along fast.

Nice irony Arh-Cull.
But where does state presumption end? If the state wishes to tax everyone at 100% should each citizen have to write in beforehand to object?Are we talking about a life and death issue that can't wait until April every year?

Not donating is not killing people. People have no right to other people's organs. They have no right to expect help from others. If others are willing to give help, great. If not, well, better hope cloning or something comes along fast.If others are unwilling to give help, there's no problem there either. They can inform their doctors and carry around a non-organ donor card. I'll imagine this will be a hit among orthodox jews.

I dont know how it is everywhere else but in the US we are given a donor sticker to put on our liscense when we recieve it. You can either take the seven seconds to put the sticker, that is in one hand, on the liscense, that is in the other hand or not put it on at all.

This is a case where people say they want to donate their organs so they dont offend the rightous knee jerk reaction crowd but when they actually have to take ANY action to do it they realize its not what they want after all. Much like Obama voters and volunteering at the animal shelter.

The state has no right to assume you want to do something because they want you to do it. I realize the Brits have a paternal veiw of government while here in the US we want our autonomy, but this is still infringing on freedoms in my veiw. Take for instance a reapplication of the principle. Next time you vote, you automatically vote for the labour party unless you fill out some paper work after waiting in a long line at some government building. Would you feel that is a fair process?

Not donating is not killing people.

That's nice. Please point out to me where I used the word "killing" in the post you quoted.

or are you under the erronious and foolish perception that "killing someone" is the same as "letting someone die". If so I suggest you learn the difference.

I think it's because of the shortages of organs and increased demands that require other people to give their organs after death.
To be honest i'm not going to use my lungs once i'm dead so i'd be happy to see another person have the chance to live a better life than leave them to suffer.
Sure it's invading personal freedoms a little, but in the long run more people will be saved, it will save on health care costs (due to having healthier people sooner).
And to be honest the government already has huge powers over what you do, so they try to help you with various institutions to protect you, it's the only way to manage huge numbers of people effectively.
I fail to see how you're preserving your freedom by stopping the government from taking your dead body, once you're dead you have your options reduced a little so how can you have freedom?
so i'm in favour of automatic organ donation once you're dead.
Even if the government don't take your dead organs the worms will have them, or the furnace. In fact it could help bring people together knowing another person you love gave their heart for someone with a heart defect.Compulsory organ donation isn't really the issue though, it's making donation the default position as opposed to non-donation, if there is no little slip of paper saying otherwise.

I think it's because of the shortages of organs and increased demands that require other people to give their organs after death.
To be honest i'm not going to use my lungs once i'm dead so i'd be happy to see another person have the chance to live a better life than leave them to suffer.
Sure it's invading personal freedoms a little, but in the long run more people will be saved, it will save on health care costs (due to having healthier people sooner).
And to be honest the government already has huge powers over what you do, so they try to help you with various institutions to protect you, it's the only way to manage huge numbers of people effectively.
I fail to see how you're preserving your freedom by stopping the government from taking your dead body, once you're dead you have your options reduced a little so how can you have freedom?
so i'm in favour of automatic organ donation once you're dead.
Even if the government don't take your dead organs the worms will have them, or the furnace. In fact it could help bring people together knowing another person you love gave their heart for someone with a heart defect.

The idea of having to 'opt out' of anything as opposed to 'opting in' is disturbing, though this is less disturbing than most.

Uhh, well I thought pretty much everyone had a drivers license, even if they didn't own a car.No. Some countries have decent public transportation systems. Unfortunately, I don't live in one of them.

BS. People don't have to jack shit to help other people. I don't want my body mutilated and harvested for my parts once I die. I want my as intact as possible when I'm buried or burned (haven't decided which). Hell, I don't even want an autopsy, but I don't know how I'd get around that...Methinks looking into the embalming process will help you make up your mind.

I'm not a Nazi. I just think that perhaps it might someones time to go. It would also benefit the gene pool if someone with genetic disorders didn't breed. That's simple. I'm not saying they should be killed, sterilized, or anything. I'm just calling it like I see it.

Genetics doesn't really work like that. Most alleles of genes that cause health problems tend to be recessive and therefore it is possible for people that don't display any symptoms to be carrying that allele and they can pass it on. So no, you aren't really calling like it is.


Uh, no?
The choice is still presumed for them. That is wrong.

Surely in an opt-in system the choice is presumed anyway. It's just in the opt-out system, its presumed in the direction you don't like.

Death happens. That's life. Everything that ever lives, dies. That is a fact, and will always remain a fact. The quest for immortality, or extreme life extension is pure folly, as well as selfish, for the old must always make way for the new.

Why does the new have priority over the old? The old are a store of wisdom that could only benefit the young even more the longer they are around. Without longevity, the human species would have never been able to achieve anything more than a primitive existence as animals; it was the elderly who preserved and passed on wisdom, not allowing to to be lost.

Society's obsession with youth is what causes us to have this strange idea that it is better to throw away the resources of the old than to preserve them for as long as possible. This is nothing more than archaic instinct, that dark part of us that views everything solely in terms of survival to the point of reproduction. Pursuing life extension would help destroy this ridiculous ageist viewpoint and allow everyone to contribute to a new, better society.

Plus, the world couldn't handle and ever consuming, growing, immortal (or extremely long lived) population. Let death run its course.

It's worth the risk, and I'm pretty sure an immortal population would have the foresight to find ways around those constraints anyways. I'd rather take the chance of overpopulation if it meant preserving my loved ones for as long as possible; nothing is more important than that.


I've had people close to me die. It is rough. But you must remember those who are no longer with you and cherish their memory.

I want more than their memories. Memories are nothing more than a slowly fading, dying if you will, remnant that is little more than a phantom. I would pay any price to ensure that people are not left with only memories.

I don't really see why you'd favour one system over the other except based on the different outcomes based on apathy.

An Opt-In system excludes the apathetic, while an Opt-Out system includes the apathetic.

I'd Opt-Out. They're my organs, and if I'm not allowed to sell them I'm certainly not going to give them away.

I don't really see why you'd favour one system over the other except based on the different outcomes based on apathy.

An Opt-In system excludes the apathetic, while an Opt-Out system includes the apathetic.

I'd Opt-Out. They're my organs, and if I'm not allowed to sell them I'm certainly not going to give them away.

But if a member of your family was ill, and say they needed a kidney(due to theirs failing) and you were a good match, would you not help them?
If so why not help others once you're dead?
is it a moral action to deny others your resources when you don't need them?

Just thought you might be interested to know- 70% of UK residents agree wioth organ donation, but only 10% are on the register (I think). The NHS will save 500 million pounds over 10 years because of the presumed consent, and over a thousand people a year will survive where they would have died. (Fairly sure about these facts, but please do tell me if I'm wrong.

Just thought you might be interested to know- 70% of UK residents agree wioth organ donation, but only 10% are on the register (I think). The NHS will save 500 million pounds over 10 years because of the presumed consent, and over a thousand people a year will survive where they would have died. (Fairly sure about these facts, but please do tell me if I'm wrong.

24% are on the register

link (http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/)

The state has no right to assume you want to do something because they want you to do it. I realize the Brits have a paternal veiw of government while here in the US we want our autonomy, but this is still infringing on freedoms in my veiw.
I understand what you're saying. The problem that I have with it is that I simply don't see what "freedoms" a corpse should have.

I stand by my original reaction - if people feel strongly enough about it, and are quite simply not prepared to allow any of their body parts to be available to others after they die, they can opt out.

By automatically making the presumption that those who haven't opted out are either happy with the whole idea or, alternatively, just don't give enough of a shit to pay attention to what's going on in the country around them, the number of organs available for those that need them increases. I just don't see a down side.

But if a member of your family was ill, and say they needed a kidney(due to theirs failing) and you were a good match, would you not help them?
If so why not help others once you're dead?
is it a moral action to deny others your resources when you don't need them?
I may well give away my organs to people I specifically want to save, and I may well give away my organs even if were I allowed to sell them.

But since they're mine, I think I should be allowed to sell them, and since I'm not I can protest the system by refusing to give them away.

And that's neither moral nor immoral, since it isn't action. Inaction is morally neutral.

But since they're mine, I think I should be allowed to sell them, and since I'm not I can protest the system by refusing to give them away.
Which you can still do under presumed consent.

I may well give away my organs to people I specifically want to save, and I may well give away my organs even if were I allowed to sell them.

But since they're mine, I think I should be allowed to sell them, and since I'm not I can protest the system by refusing to give them away.

And that's neither moral nor immoral, since it isn't action. Inaction is morally neutral.

Where inaction is not an avoidance of choice but a choice in of itself, morality can be applied to that choice.

Anyone who supports compulsory (unless opted out) organ harvesting is sick-minded.

Which you can still do under presumed consent.
As I said. Presumed consent only affects the fate of the apathetic. Those who actively choose one option or the other needn't have a preference.

Where inaction is not an avoidance of choice but a choice in of itself, morality can be applied to that choice.
Everything is a choice. The distinction is illusory.

You can apply morality to whatever choice you like, but you can only correctly apply morality to actions.

Everything is a choice. The distinction is illusory.

You can apply morality to whatever choice you like, but you can only correctly apply morality to actions.

and choosing to do something other than X is an action, and morality can be applied to it.

Presumed consent affects everyone, not just the apathetic. How is it possible to presume consent? Consent is nothing if it is not freely given. Consent can not be assumed, nor presmed. It is in the gift of the donor. Consent should be a positive, not something which is presumed.

In 1938,the armies of Hitler marched into Austria,the Anschluss. There is little doubt that a substantial portion of the population supported the merger. Some obviously did not but I suppose they gave their presumed consent?

The idea of having to 'opt out' of anything as opposed to 'opting in' is disturbing, though this is less disturbing than most.

yeah, if it was most anything other than saving lives by using organs taken from those who no longer even have the option of using them, it would be troubling. but in this specific case, even allowing people to opt out seems rather decadent - though we still should make allowances for those who believe their heart will be weighed against a feather by anubis, just to keep things civil.

yeah, if it was most anything other than saving lives by using organs taken from those who no longer even have the option of using them, it would be troubling. but in this specific case, even allowing people to opt out seems rather decadent - though we still should make allowances for those who believe their heart will be weighed against a feather by anubis, just to keep things civil.I say it's still troubling...but I'm not sure that it's troubling enough to not enact.

In 1938,the armies of Hitler marched into Austria,the Anschluss. There is little doubt that a substantial portion of the population supported the merger. Some obviously did not but I suppose they gave their presumed consent?

Nice Godwin.

As for the organ thing, I hope this doesn't interfere too much with natural selection. With all the stupid corrupting our species with stupid lawsuits and actions deserving of nothing more than a Darwin Award, we need natural selection. BADLY! People that stupid should NOT be corrupting our gene pool. And there is a difference between mentally challenged and just plain stupid. Retardation, I have sympathy. Stupid? Let the stupid die. You can be metally challenged, but not stupid.

Let the stupid die. We wouldn't need to fire a gun or anything. The stupid practically kill themselves and most that do aren't even remotely suicidal.

With all the stupid corrupting our species with stupid lawsuits . . .

Not to derail, but I've seen a lot of people complaining about "stupid lawsuits" but I have yet to see one person on this forum give an example of an actual case, verifiable, that actually made it to trial, that is so called "stupid", and backed up that assertion with actual relevant law, and an understanding of how our trial system actually works.

Not to derail, but I've seen a lot of people complaining about "stupid lawsuits" but I have yet to see one person on this forum give an example of an actual case, verifiable, that actually made it to trial, that is so called "stupid", and backed up that assertion with actual relevant law, and an understanding of how our trial system actually works.

You mean other than the McDonalds lady? I've been thinking of making a thread for that. I've read about stupid lawsuits, like the five year old who sued his father because the father's lawn mower accidentally touched the kid. Not the blades or anything. The plastic/metal casing that protects the mechanisms from the elements. It touched the kid and the kid sued. Of course, the lawyer got in so much legal trouble.

And as for how the system works. Idiot gets a lwyer and fills out forms or whatever. Thing goes to trouble. The jury REALLY doesn't want to be there. Idiot wins because the jury doesn't give a damn and just wants to go home.

You mean other than the McDonalds lady?

haha, you walked right in to that one

You mean other than the McDonalds lady?

Thanks for proving my point.

I've read about stupid lawsuits, like the five year old who sued his father because the father's lawn mower accidentally touched the kid. Not the blades or anything. The plastic/metal casing that protects the mechanisms from the elements. It touched the kid and the kid sued. Of course, the lawyer got in so much legal trouble.

Ahh, you "read about it". Thanks for proving my point, again.

Compulsary organ donation for me is a no brainer, if some minority nuts can't reconcile their silly religious traditions with altruism then their God surely wouldn't want to let such a cuss into Heaven.

Also Dunroaming, epic Godwin.

Eureka, thank you for the compliment about the Godwin. I must confess I was pleased to introduce it into the argument.
However, I still have a problem about the rights of the citizen being traduced by the state. Let us reverse the argument. Suppose I try to commit suicide. I fail but remain unconscious, and the only way to save me is to transplant a major organ such as a liver. I clearly do not want to live as I have made a determined attempt at suicide. In those circumstances is it right for the state to take a course of action to try to force upon me a transplant? Who presumes my consent?
Let me say again to those who would suggest I am some form of religious nut:
1. I am in favour of organ donation. I have carried an organ donor card for many years.
2. If I ever needed an organ donated to me I would be very grateful to receive it.
Compulsory organ donation is not a no-brainer. I have made the choice to be an organ donor. If someone else chooses not to be, or simply makes no decision either way, the state must not interfere with the rights of that citizen. Consent is freely given, or not given at all. There is no half-way house.

Eureka, thank you for the compliment about the Godwin. I must confess I was pleased to introduce it into the argument.
However, I still have a problem about the rights of the citizen being traduced by the state. Let us reverse the argument. Suppose I try to commit suicide. I fail but remain unconscious, and the only way to save me is to transplant a major organ such as a liver. I clearly do not want to live as I have made a determined attempt at suicide. In those circumstances is it right for the state to take a course of action to try to force upon me a transplant? Who presumes my consent?
Let me say again to those who would suggest I am some form of religious nut:
1. I am in favour of organ donation. I have carried an organ donor card for many years.
2. If I ever needed an organ donated to me I would be very grateful to receive it.
Compulsory organ donation is not a no-brainer. I have made the choice to be an organ donor. If someone else chooses not to be, or simply makes no decision either way, the state must not interfere with the rights of that citizen. Consent is freely given, or not given at all. There is no half-way house.

Well I oppose any kind of 'rights', for me the power of the state is absolute. But even if I disregard this, do you think that a dead person has rights? This seems like more of the crazy libertarianism again.

Of course a dead person has rights. If I wish to leave money to my children, I make a will. Does the state have a presumed consent to deprive me of those rights. Similarly, if I want to donate my body for organ transplants I carry an organ donation card. If I choose not to, that is my choice. It is not crazy libertarianism, but a fundamental right for me to order my life, and death, in any manner that I choose, provided that I do not break any laws.

It is not crazy libertarianism, but a fundamental right for me to order my life, and death, in any manner that I choose, provided that I do not break any laws.
What if the law required that you be an organ donor?

No civilized society could, or should, make such a law.

seems fine to me. its not like i'll be needing them :p

No civilized society could, or should, make such a law.
Isn't continental Europe civilised?

No civilized society could, or should, make such a law.

Why shouldnt such a law be made ?

The current problem in many countries is that when asked, most people are ok with organ donation after death, yet the amount of people carrying a donor card is a lot smaller. Changing the law to mean that you will donate unless you state otherwise simply makes things easier. And it will save a lot of lives.

Continental Europe, as a generalisation, sees more state intervention, than would be found in the UK. There are historical and legal reasons for such intervention.
I go back to the root of my argument. Consent can not be presumed. It must be freely given. Until the donor has given consent, by an act or deed, consent does not exist.

Continental Europe, as a generalisation, sees more state intervention, than would be found in the UK. There are historical and legal reasons for such intervention.
I go back to the root of my argument. Consent can not be presumed. It must be freely given. Until the donor has given consent, by an act or deed, consent does not exist.

If the law says you consent to organ donation unless you specifically revoke that consent, then you consent.
You say:"Consent can not be presumed", why do you think this ? Apart from the law as it is now, i dont see a reason why we cannot presume consent, and if the law is changed, we can presume consent.

Eureka, thank you for the compliment about the Godwin. I must confess I was pleased to introduce it into the argument.
However, I still have a problem about the rights of the citizen being traduced by the state. Let us reverse the argument. Suppose I try to commit suicide. I fail but remain unconscious, and the only way to save me is to transplant a major organ such as a liver. I clearly do not want to live as I have made a determined attempt at suicide. In those circumstances is it right for the state to take a course of action to try to force upon me a transplant? Who presumes my consent?

Actually, you would be highly unlikely to get an organ at that point. People who are suicidal, have current drug problems, etc. are not eligible. (in the US, anyways, I don't know about other systems).

You can change the law but you cannot presume consent. Consent comes from the latin verb "consentire"--to agree. It requires a meeting of minds to agree. If the question, or demand, is never put, there is no agreement.
Remember that in any society, the apathetic have their rights too. The failure to opt-out of organ donation is not consent to opt-in. The words "presumed consent" are mutually exclusive and should not be used together in the same sentence.

I go back to the root of my argument. Consent can not be presumed. It must be freely given. Until the donor has given consent, by an act or deed, consent does not exist.

Would you be in favour of forcing people to make the decision ?
One could for instance require someone to fill in a form before they get their shiney new passport or drivers license. If you say "yes" or "no" to organ donation on the form is not important for getting the ID, just that you filled it in.

If you have to fill a form in to get a shiny new licence, then you have consented. How do you get a dead person to consent to be a donor? You can not, unless that person in his/her lifetime has agreed. In its absence, there can not be consent.
There is a balance to be drawn in society as to the rights of the individual against the well being of the state. No-one can seriously argue against the proposition that a presumption of consent would increase the volume of organ transplants and save lives, but in the wider scheme of things, in my view, this is too big a price to pay. The rights of the individual should be paramount. With those rights, however, comes responsibility, which is why responsible citizens should "volunteer" to be organ donors.

Let's just say it's like a Death Tax. Only you pay in kidneys and livers.

If you have to fill a form in to get a shiny new licence, then you have consented. How do you get a dead person to consent to be a donor? You can not, unless that person in his/her lifetime has agreed. In its absence, there can not be consent.

And there lies the problem. During life, most people are unwilling to make the decision and formalise it. Result: donor shortage.

Assuming one wishes to remedy this, sveral options are now available:

1. Increase awareness. Does not work in practice. Even something as big and controversial as the "donor show" did not result in more than about 20 000 new donors.
2. Obligate/force people to make their wishes known during their lifetime.
3. Use a presumed (or even an obligatory) donor consent system.
4. Find alternative sources of organs.

Let's just say it's like a Death Tax. Only you pay in kidneys and livers.

Nice one Geniasis. But a tax is surely nothing more than a demand. Where is the agreement? If the state wants its citizens' livers and kidneys, call it a tax, or whatever, but do not use the word consent. If I do not want to donate my kidneys, and the state wants them, let the state pass a law to that effect. But do not call such theft consent!

Nice one Geniasis. But a tax is surely nothing more than a demand. Where is the agreement? If the state wants its citizens' livers and kidneys, call it a tax, or whatever, but do not use the word consent. If I do not want to donate my kidneys, and the state wants them, let the state pass a law to that effect. But do not call such theft consent!

again, if your problem with the argument is merely a linguistic one, and you have nothing of substance to add about the law itself, I'm sure we can come up with a wording that is more acceptable to you, so we can quit arguing semantics.

And there lies the problem. During life, most people are unwilling to make the decision and formalise it. Result: donor shortage.

Assuming one wishes to remedy this, sveral options are now available:

1. Increase awareness. Does not work in practice. Even something as big and controversial as the "donor show" did not result in more than about 20 000 new donors.
2. Obligate/force people to make their wishes known during their lifetime.
3. Use a presumed (or even an obligatory) donor consent system.
4. Find alternative sources of organs.

5. Create an ethical market for organs

If you have to fill a form in to get a shiny new licence, then you have consented. How do you get a dead person to consent to be a donor? You can not, unless that person in his/her lifetime has agreed. In its absence, there can not be consent.
There is a balance to be drawn in society as to the rights of the individual against the well being of the state. No-one can seriously argue against the proposition that a presumption of consent would increase the volume of organ transplants and save lives, but in the wider scheme of things, in my view, this is too big a price to pay. The rights of the individual should be paramount. With those rights, however, comes responsibility, which is why responsible citizens should "volunteer" to be organ donors.

I really don't think that the rights of the dead outweigh the rights - or needs - of the living.

Continental Europe, as a generalisation, sees more state intervention, than would be found in the UK. There are historical and legal reasons for such intervention.
I go back to the root of my argument. Consent can not be presumed. It must be freely given. Until the donor has given consent, by an act or deed, consent does not exist.
Nice dodge.

again, if your problem with the argument is merely a linguistic one, and you have nothing of substance to add about the law itself, I'm sure we can come up with a wording that is more acceptable to you, so we can quit arguing semantics.

The problem is that it is the state which uses the term "presumed consent" to try to justify a policy in which the rights of the citizen are being reduced. I was accused of a Godwin in an earlier message. Well, here is another one. "Arbeit macht frei" does not mean forced labour and death.

The problem is that it is the state which uses the term "presumed consent" to try to justify a policy in which the rights of the citizen are being reduced.

and once again, I'd like you to show me how their rights are being reduced when not a single person is required, forced, or in any way made to donate their organs against their will.

The problem is that it is the state which uses the term “presumed consent” to try to justify a policy in which the rights of the citizen are being reduced.
But how is government presuming that you want to give your consent any better or worse than government presuming that you don’t want to give your consent?

Either way, government presumes something about your body and acts accordingly. Either way, government ‘reduces’ the rights of the citizen’, if you want to talk in such language; the right to determine what happens with one’s body is ‘reduced’ by government presuming you don’t want to donate your organs just as much (or indeed as little) by government presuming you do want to donate your organs.

Moreover, your argument(s) against government determining what you can and can’t do with your body would lead you to a strict defence of the right to imbue any substance, or to take one’s own life. I don’t know if you support full drug legalisation and euthanasia, but your position certainly does.

Thanks for proving my point.
Stella Liebeck doesn't count?

Choosing to act (or not to act) is not an action. Inaction is always morally neutral.

Not saving a dying person while you are fully able to is morally neutral ? Or just in the case of organ donation ?

and choosing to do something other than X is an action, and morality can be applied to it.
You're applying morality to the choice or the lack of action again.

Either make the argument that the other thing I do (rather than donating my organs) is immoral (even though you can't know what that thing is), or accept that you dispute my assertions.

Choosing to act (or not to act) is not an action. Inaction is always morally neutral. There is no response you can make here that makes failure to donate my organs immoral unless you explicitly dispute one of those two assertions.

Not saving a dying person while you are fully able to is morally neutral ? Or just in the case of organ donation ?
That's a discussion for another thread, I think, but yes.

OrganHarvester: "We've come for your liver..."

Man: "But I'm using it...."

OrganHarvester: [Takes man's wallet] "Is this your organ donation card?"

Man: "Yes.... But it says 'In the event of death'..."

OrganDonator: "No one has ever had their liver taken out by us and survived...."

Anyone who supports compulsory (unless opted out) organ harvesting is sick-minded.

Anyone who doesn't has never had the pleasure of watching a relative sicken and die because selfish assholes can't take five seconds to sign a form. (and yes, I've been an organ donor since my first driver's license)

Some people believe that natural selection is not the tool of the devil and believing that sometimes, it's best not to have a very large population (which are often more vulnerable to famines, drouts, and epidemics than smaller, less dense populations). The human race does not need to be 6 billion strong. If we could avoid extinction with a total population below a million without modern technology, we definitely don't need billions now that we have airplanes and computers and whatnot.


You know, I doubt you'd be making a natural selection aregument if it were you or your relative who was lying in the hospital bed, dying because of something that isn't their fault. I understand overpopulation, it's the reason I've chosen to be child free. But to say that someone you love should die for the good of the human race is pretty fucking heartless.

This is the government presuming - if in doubt - that you're a decent generous human being, and not a selfish arsehole who'd rather let others die than part with an organ you don't need because you're dead. I'm happy for the government to presume this about me, and am a bit confused by people who would rather have the reverse presumed about them.

This is not the government planning to lie in wait outside the hospital to run in and rape your corpse as soon as you stop breathing, singing "ha ha ha, I trample on your freedoms". There will not be a big vault somewhere in Westminster filled with kidneys for politicians to rub their hands and gloat over.

The proposal is to allow doctors to save lives that are currently being lost at the rate of 3 a day, by taking bits and pieces from people that are already dead and don't need them any more. I really don't see how a vague sense that this is an infringement of personal freedom can really stand up against that.

Well, most people, I assume like their bodies intact? My liver may change over time, but its mine. And that's what counts.So you wouldn't want a blood transfusion if you ever needed emergency surgery? After all, the blood wouldn't be yours.

Actually I have never been very sick. A cold here and there, a stomach virus, a bit of allergies, 1 broken bone, cuts and bruises, maybe a ear infection or something when I was a baby, but that's about it. Yes, I did take some antibiotics a few times when I was younger, but I haven't taken any medicine besides Advil in years. So no, I don't think I just a statistic that never haven't because of medicine.I guess you know about the difference between preventative medicine and curative medicine. So yeah, you might never have used much curative medicine, but how much preventative medicine have you used? Just think of all those diseases you've been inoculated against: tetanus; diphtheria; mumps; pneumonia; measles; rubella; polio; tuberculosis, hepatitis; and meningitis. And what about the ones you don't need to be vaccinated against because preventative medicine has eradicated or reduced the threat of those diseases - take smallpox, typhoid fever or cholera for example.

So you might never have been very sick in your life, but there's a damn good reason for that. By your abhorrent view point you are implicitly suggesting that at least 33% of us should not be here today because we would have succumbed to a childhood infection as fate decreed. So I do find your wishes to deny people access to medicine when you have already benefited immensely from medicine of the utmost repugnance.

Anyways. Back to a solution, since transplants will probably stay. How about an online form where you state yes or no, and then you can be mailed a card saying which you prefer? Maybe you could renew it every 5 years or so, just in case you change your mind. That's sounds pretty fair- that the 'yays' and the 'nays' both have to fill out forms. Plus, you could still do it at the DMV, and maybe hospitals and doctor's offices if you wanted.Why waste all that effort continually asking people for the same information? It's not like a company checks back with you every 5 years to check that you still want to be on their mailing list. Just have, as part of your birth certificate when you are born a question to be filled in by the parents, and if you really decide you want to change your mind or the decision your parents made for you then just fill in a form of your own volition as you would a change of address form for your driver's license.

edit: I think I left out whooping cough.

But how is government presuming that you want to give your consent any better or worse than government presuming that you don’t want to give your consent?Does this argument apply to everything, or just organ donation?

So you wouldn't want a blood transfusion if you ever needed emergency surgery? After all, the blood wouldn't be yours.
It wouldn't be inconsistent of Trollgaard to accept the blood, but it would be inconsistent of him to compel others to donate it.

Does this argument apply to everything, or just organ donation?
I haven’t really thought about this, but I’d initially say yes...

What are you getting at?

You know, I doubt you'd be making a natural selection aregument if it were you or your relative who was lying in the hospital bed, dying because of something that isn't their fault. I understand overpopulation, it's the reason I've chosen to be child free. But to say that someone you love should die for the good of the human race is pretty fucking heartless.

You have to understand, that's the crux of it: the people who advocated these measures are always part of their self-chosen elite who deserve to survive after one of their euphemistically named "population control" measures comes in to effect, all of which refer to the outright extermination of billions of people.

In their mind, it is never going to be them or anyone they care about that will be victims, because if that were the case it would cause them to realize that other people are, amazingly, just like them...they have families, friends, hopes, dreams, and everything else, and deserve as much right to live as they do. Keeping the human population dehumanized allows them to refer to it as nothing more than a statistic, making it easy to support something that really is nothing more than genocide by omission.

It wouldn't be inconsistent of Trollgaard to accept the blood, but it would be inconsistent of him to compel others to donate it.

It would be inconsistent. If he objects to organ donation on the basis that his body is his own and it should not be altered, then it is inconsistent for him to accept a blood transfusion unless it comes from his own blood (presumably donated at some point in the past).

I haven’t really thought about this, but I’d initially say yes...

What are you getting at?So then the government can search your house unless you fill out a form telling them not to?

So then the government can search your house unless you fill out a form telling them not to?
The analogy doesn’t work here.

You don’t fill out a form allowing the government to search your house. The courts do.

All I’m saying is that the argument ‘the government is presuming infringement of your bodily rights’ is pretty weak, or at least, can be applied both ways.

The analogy doesn’t work here.

You don’t fill out a form allowing the government to search your house. The courts do.The courts do because the government can't just go in and search if they want to.

Should they be able to, as long as you don't fill out a form telling them they can't?

All I’m saying is that the argument ‘the government is presuming infringement of your bodily rights’ is pretty weak, or at least, can be applied both ways.True, but applying it both ways leads to it being applied both ways in other cases, as well.

So, views? Which system would you prefer?


Regardless of the particular system I envision (public, private, "presumed consent," etc.), I can't help but come up with all kinds of scenarios where politicians, bureaucrats, profit seekers, and others go to great lengths to "help" me on my way to eternal bliss so they can get access to my innards. Never mind the potential for socioeconomic stratification, wherein the rich live long and prosperous lives thanks to replacement parts made of the not rich (I understand there is a well developed science fiction literature on this particular aspect of the issue).

My primary concern is ensuring that donors are actually done with the organs in question before they are donated, and that we don't end up turning people into walking spare parts bins. A voluntary opt-in system is, as far as I have yet determined, the best way to do this.

Of course, if medical science continues producing amazing results (http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=74404&newsChannel=scienceNews), where "organ donation" is simply a matter of drawing some blood or applying a cotton swab to the inside of a cheek, this issue may become moot entirely.

The courts do because the government can’t just go in and search if they want to.

Should they be able to, as long as you don’t fill out a form telling them they can’t?
No, but then the courts don’t presume you have withheld consent from the police; they don’t take your consent, or lack of it, into any consideration.

I really don’t think the analogy works.

True, but applying it both ways leads to it being applied both ways in other cases, as well.
Sure, but certainly not in this case.

Arguing that ‘presumed consent on organ donation is as invasive as presumed non-consent’ doesn’t automatically lead to to ‘the government has my presumed consent on any action’.

No, but then the courts don’t presume you have withheld consent from the police; they don’t take your consent, or lack of it, into any consideration.

I really don’t think the analogy works.Really? So then the police can't knock on your door and ask you if they can come in?

Sure, but certainly not in this case.

Arguing that ‘presumed consent on organ donation is as invasive as presumed non-consent’ doesn’t automatically lead to to ‘the government has my presumed consent on any action’.It does unless you specify a relevant difference between organ donation and other actions.

Really? So then the police can’t knock on your door and ask you if they can come in?
In what way does this have to do with presumed consent, or lack of it? If the police are asking you if they can come in then, by definition, they aren’t presuming anything.

It does unless you specify a relevant difference between organ donation and other actions.
OK:

We are presumed to give our consent to organ donation (if the change in law happens). We aren’t presumed to give our consent to arbitrary government house searches, or innumerable other actions.

In what way does this have to do with presumed consent, or lack of it? If the police are asking you if they can come in then, by definition, they aren’t presuming anything. Yes, and I was asking you if they should have to ask you at all to come in. Would you favor a change in the law giving them presumed consent (unless you opt out)?

OK:

We are presumed to give our consent to organ donation (if the change in law happens). We aren’t presumed to give our consent to arbitrary government house searches, or innumerable other actions....Because?

Yes, and I was asking you if they should have to ask you at all to come in. Would you favor a change in the law giving them presumed consent (unless you opt out)?
Obviously not Jello.

But I still fail to see how pointing out a flaw in an argument involving presumed consent means I give away my consent to any government action.

If I point out a flaw in an argument involving climate change, do I suddenly support all measures proposed to combat climate change?

Of course not.

...Because?
Because UK/Scots law doesn’t work like that.

Obviously not Jello.

But I still fail to see how pointing out a flaw in an argument involving presumed consent means I give away my consent to any government action.Not in and of itself, no.
What I'm trying to say is that you aren't differentiating between organ donation and other things. More specifically, you're arguing that is it equally invasive to assume that someone wants to donate their organs as opposed to not wanting to donate their organs. How is this different from an argument that it is equally invasive to assume that someone wants the police in their house as opposed to not wanting the police in their house?

If I point out a flaw in an argument involving climate change, do I suddenly support all measures proposed to combat climate change?

Of course not.Most likely not, but possibly.

I'm not saying you support police searches without consent, I'm merely asking you to elaborate on your argument.

Because UK/Scots law doesn’t work like that.The law isn't currently one of presumed consent, either though.

Not in and of itself, no.
What I’m trying to say is that you aren’t differentiating between organ donation and other things. More specifically, you’re arguing that is it equally invasive to assume that someone wants to donate their organs as opposed to not wanting to donate their organs. How is this different from an argument that it is equally invasive to assume that someone wants the police in their house as opposed to not wanting the police in their house?
Logically it’s not. Practically, there’s some major differences.

Firstly, organ donation is, for want of a better term, a ‘binary choice’; we either consent or don’t. We don’t have such a choice with police searches. For a start, the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time neither give or withhold consent; there is no choice to make because there is no search to give consent to or not. For obvious reasons, we can’t give consent to as yet non-existent, unfixed, actions.

Organ donation is fixed; we give consent on an individual basis for our organs to be removed after death. Police searches aren’t fixed. If we lived in some mad world where the police searched your house once per year unless you signed a form of non-consent, then your objections would stand.

Which brings me to my second major difference: the law simply doesn’t work like that. Organ donation is a separate, individual issue. Just because presumed consent may be used here, doesn’t mean that presumed consent will be used across the board. I imagine many health trusts use a utilitarian method of deciding where funds are allocated, but this doesn’t mean that the health board will use a utilitarian method to decide all decisions.

The law isn’t currently one of presumed consent, either though.
And I’m not advocating changing our entire law system to a system of presumed consent; I’m discussing an individual issue.

Regardless of the particular system I envision (public, private, "presumed consent," etc.), I can't help but come up with all kinds of scenarios where politicians, bureaucrats, profit seekers, and others go to great lengths to "help" me on my way to eternal bliss so they can get access to my innards. Never mind the potential for socioeconomic stratification, wherein the rich live long and prosperous lives thanks to replacement parts made of the not rich (I understand there is a well developed science fiction literature on this particular aspect of the issue).

My primary concern is ensuring that donors are actually done with the organs in question before they are donated, and that we don't end up turning people into walking spare parts bins. A voluntary opt-in system is, as far as I have yet determined, the best way to do this.


I always find it rather funny when people think that doctors are going to kill them off to have access to their organs. They assume that the fact that doctors try hard to save others somehow translates into doctors not trying equally hard to save them...

Logically it’s not. Practically, there’s some major differences.

Firstly, organ donation is, for want of a better term, a ‘binary choice’; we either consent or don’t. We don’t have such a choice with police searches. For a start, the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time neither give or withhold consent; The vast majority of people neither give nor withhold consent with regard to organ donation - isn't that the issue here? That people support the idea of organ donation but don't bother with filling out the forms?

Police searches aren’t fixed. If we lived in some mad world where the police searched your house once per year unless you signed a form of non-consent, then your objections would stand.Presumed consent with police searches could easily lead to this.

Which brings me to my second major difference: the law simply doesn’t work like that. Organ donation is a separate, individual issue. Just because presumed consent may be used here, doesn’t mean that presumed consent will be used across the board. I imagine many health trusts use a utilitarian method of deciding where funds are allocated, but this doesn’t mean that the health board will use a utilitarian method to decide all decisions. Certainly not.
I'm not suggesting that presumed consent for organ donation = presumed consent across the board.
I'm saying that your specific argument, without elaboration = presumed consent across the board.

And I’m not advocating changing our entire law system to a system of presumed consent; I’m discussing an individual issue.The argument that you made applies to an entire system of presumed consent, unless you elaborate upon it.

I am somewhat amused that people call this a "human rights" issue on par with the right against search and seizure.I'm not, since it is a human right.

I am unsure why people would compare a fundamental constitutional liberty to some notion of quasi "rights" that somehow persist after you're dead.Certain rights do persist after you're dead. If they didn't, wills wouldn't exist.