Presumed consent organ donation

elmarko said:
The state doesn't benefit from opt out, it's individuals who do.
Click to expand...

I didnt say anything about benefit.

The state is enforcing a default position that is not in favour of the individuals unspoken assumed choice. Its authoritarian it assumes a choice when none has been made.
 
matdom said:
What about people coming around the world for transplants? the current system is fine, if you want to opt in that you can sign up.
Just because I have not opted out does not mean the government can harvest my organs.
Click to expand...

Like I said everyone should be given the choice, if you don't respond then you get opted in and you can opt out at any time. You're not being forced to give up your organs, you will have a choice. There is a shortage in this country so the current system obviously isn't fine.

You first question doesn't make sense
 
Castiel said:
Yeah...."unless you agree to what we tell you then you dont get to live"....yep thats freedom at its best....:eek:
Click to expand...
Technically it is freedom, everybody is free to join the donation party & give & receive from the benefits.

If opt out is so wrong, & a mutual opt in is also terrible - isn't a tiny minority of the population being the soul source of organs for everybody else which results in the death of many worse?.

I'm not saying any solutions are ideal, it's a matte of picking the "least worse" choice for people, aka a large collection of individuals.

Castiel said:
The state is enforcing a default position that is not in favour of the individuals choice. Its authoritarian.
Click to expand...
The state wouldn't be enforcing anything - just changing the default assumption from X to Y.

I could make the same argument, that the state is is currently enforcing an assumed stance nobody would consent (when many actually would consent, just haven't thought about it) is just as authoritarian - as you still have the capacity to opt out, nothing is enforced.

What solution would you suggest to this problem?.

Would not the state assuming I wouldn't donate be against the favour of my personal choice (as I'm forced to opt in currently), the argument reversed makes no more sense & has no more weight.

Just the death toll of each assumption is hugely different, so you solve nothing & kill a load of people by keeping it as it is.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to opt out if it happens here.
but if I'm going to get an autopsy anyway they might as well have the organs.
not everyone has an autopsy and gets opened up though?

I don't like the thought of my body being cut up after I'm dead even if it will help someone else

If I could sell my corpse and give my family the money tbh I probably would even if it were a few k
 
Castiel said:
The state is enforcing a default position that is not in favour of the individuals unspoken assumed choice. Its authoritarian it assumes a choice when none has been made.
Click to expand...

But, as I see it, if the government were to try and enforce this system, it would really be due to those people who would happily donate their organs but have never bothered to get themselves registered. As it is, a lot of people have registered and opted out of having certain organs taken from them, for whatever reason, and they would still be able to do this.

You may see it as authoritarian, and I can understand that, but the fact is that this system would be of enormous benefit for those needing organ donations. Think how many lives you could save.
 
elmarko said:
Technically it is freedom, everybody is free to join the donation party & give & receive from the benefits.

If opt out is so wrong, & a mutual opt in is also terrible - isn't a tiny minority of the population being the soul source of organs for everybody else which results in the death of many worse?.

I'm not saying any solutions are ideal, it's a matte of picking the "least worse" choice for people, aka a large collection of individuals.

The state wouldn't be enforcing anything - just changing the default assumption from X to Y.

I could make the same argument the same assuming nobody would consent (when many actually would) is just as authoritarian - as you still have the capacity to opt out, nothing is enforced.

What solution would you suggest to this problem?.
Click to expand...

Technically its the opposite of Freedom because it assumes a positive choice has been made by the individual.

The solution is to make the choice available to everyone on their 18th birthday with periodic updates...simply send it as part of the census or something along those lines.
 
Castiel said:
If they bring in an opt out then I will opt out..I carry a card now, but that is my choice. .if the default positive position becomes the choice of the state then I will no longer carry one.

The default position should always be in favour of the individual, not the State.
Click to expand...

So very basically you like to be in the minority club of "being a donor". You've obviously decided this is a good thing and like so many others feel it would be good to give life to someone else after you die.
But if they club is changed and suddenly, by default, everyone is in your exclusive club, even though you've made the conscious decision to be a donor you would now opt out on principle?

I don't think I've ever read anything as pathetic in my life.
 
Castiel said:
If they bring in an opt out then I will opt out..I carry a card now, but that is my choice. .if the default positive position becomes the choice of the state then I will no longer carry one.

The default position should always be in favour of the individual, not the State.
Click to expand...

While I see where you're coming from, the default position of opt-out is in favour of the individual as before you're dead you're much more likely to gain an organ than to give one against your will.

Tell us, would you still opt out if that precludes you from receiving an organ?
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
Technically its the opposite of Freedom because it assumes a positive choice has been made by the individual.
Click to expand...
Isn't it the same to assume a posisitve choice that the person wouldn't donate?.

I'm failing to understand the real difference between the two, in one persons case the government may assume they want to donate (but they don't) - in my case currently the government will assume I don't want to donate (when I do) - either way the government is assuming a position.

The only difference is the impact.

Castiel said:
The solution is to make the choice available to everyone on their 18th birthday with periodic updates...simply send it as part of the census or something along those lines.
Click to expand...
The choice is already available - do you mean to have a forced choice or X or Y, as if it's not enforced are we not back to square one (the situation we have nowhere near enough donors to meet the demand & people may not out of laziness, not an expressed stance against donation).

If it was a mandatory choice then yes, it would most likely be another solution.

But if in theory, 90% of people opted out - do you think it's really fine that those 90% then take advantage of the 10% (who while they would donate, are very unlikely to get an organ if they need one).

If a person wants to benefit from society, they should be at least willing (if able, or at least looking) to contribute towards it.
 
Last edited:
good. hope they roll this out through the UK asap.

people whining about their rights are morons, its not rocket science to opt out.
 
Castiel said:
Technically its the opposite of Freedom because it assumes a positive choice has been made by the individual.

The solution is to make the choice available to everyone on their 18th birthday with periodic updates...simply send it as part of the census or something along those lines.
Click to expand...

Or, doing away with the philosophy, accept that the proposed new system will save lives, and doesn't actually affect the individual?
 
Nothing should ever be Opt-Out, regardless of how good the cause is.

Actively choosing to do something is miles apart from being given the choice to do nothing.
 
I'm all in favour. I don't see this as being authoritarian at all. If people want to opt-out, they can. They still have a choice.

Isn't saving a significant number of lives more important than the possible opinions of a corpse?
 
I'm too lazy to opt in and too lazy to opt out so this is a good thing

You have to actually acknowledge you are selfish by going to opt out
Before you could just not do it and not think about it
 
I usually ask the people who say they don't want to donate how they would feel, having being called to a Hospital to find out their loved one (child/friend/brother/sister/mother/father or boy/girlfriend) had a severe illness & needed an organ right away (something which they can't donate).

Then getting to sit next to them as they slowly die due to a lack of available organs if they would still stand by that statement.

It's not some outlandish possibility, it's a completely plausible scenario & one people should consider when making this kind of choice & supporting certain points of view.

I mean hey, if they are happy with that then fine - but don't come crying or expect any sympathy from me if it happens.
 
aln said:
While I see where you're coming from, the default position of opt-out is in favour of the individual as before you're dead you're much more likely to gain an organ than to give one against your will.

Tell us, would you still opt out if that precludes you from receiving an organ?
Click to expand...

Yes...my opposition is one of conscience not whether organ donorship is worthwhile. The state should not be in a position to determine ownership of the person as a default position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom