It would depend on if the side effect of giving it to person A resulting in more people joining the register (due to unenlightened self interest) & more lives being saved net.
Last edited:
Presumed consent organ donation
- Thread starter stoofa
- Start date
i agree.
No doubt the class system would trickle it's way into this to decide who gets what and how much money you have.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
So you would give the organ to someone who needs it less and see another die because they made bad choices in life?
Why not go the whole hog and refuse to treat smokers, fat people, people who do extreme sports etc?
If you are a doctor, and you see someone dying in front of you when you know you cam help, I'm sure the first thing that doesn't comes to mind is subjectively analysing their life choices to see if they 'deserve' to live (in your eyes).
I just don't really follow your logic with the first part, nothing is fundamentally changing. Currently the government decided for you that you don't want to donate. How is that any fairer, especially for those dieing while waiting for a transplant because the government has decided the default position for everyone?
As to the latter I agree, people shoukd choose to donate or not and the outcome should be no different. However, it is not at all like choose not to help with defense. People basically have a choice, do you want to receive an organ transplant in the case of an emergency or not? If not then you are free o do as you wish, if you do want to receive an organ in an emergency then what right do you have to dictate that you can use other people's organs but none can you yours? It is a very strange and fundamentally selfish position to hold. But I wouldn't agree to such an arrangement because people shouldn't be punished like that.
Also, don't mistake all the things the government already force upon you. You have no right to change the taxes you pay just because you disagree with the way the government spends it s money. You have no rights to change the law because you disagree with them.
It is still a choice, opt-in or opt-out is the exact same result for you and I, we get to choose. The only difference is over which group has to act on their choice. Anyone that doesn't go out of there way to opt-out, simply doesn't care.
All you are doing now is arguing over the word "donation".
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Healthcare decisions, which often have to be made in a heartbeat, can't be made like that. By the time you've done your cost/benefit analysis, you could already have one preventable death on your hands.
I just don't think your system can work, it's highly bureaucratic, time consuming and goes against all the natural instincts we have as humans. Doctors will resign left right and centre if they are forced to let people die out of 'principle' when they know they can save someone's life.
You are rightly debating the issue of 'freedom' with Castiel and on that point i agree with you, I don't see an opt out system as a loss of freedom. But then you are advocating legislating doctors so they must let people die if they have chosen not to be an organ donor, you are actively preventing them from doing their job. Now that is a loss of freedom.
We already do. Smokers won't get a lung transplant unless they have quit for a minimum amount of time. Alcoholics have to be t-total before they get a liver.
Yes, it s still a choice but you are no longer choosing to donate your organs. It is a different choice.
Why is the fact that it is no longer a donation uncomfortable for those that favour an opt out system? Surely if it is the right thing to do the fact that it is no longer a donation shouldn't matter?
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
It's not the same though. Those patients aren't told to do that out of principle, they're told to do that to maximise the chances of the transplant being successful.
There is a difference between "subscribe to our moral code or we won't treat you" and "you need to change your lifestyle otherwise anything we do will be pointless and fail".
A friend of mine was refused her hip replacement until she quit smoking, which seems to fit into scenario A in your quote rather than scenario B.
how is it different? is it not against a moral code to take drugs or to ruin you're body?
These people that opt out are selfish, it's as simple as that. They have decided to stick a middle finger up at the world and then come crawling back when the need help. If you're willing to screw people over at the point of death because of selfishness then why should you expect others to help you.
You chose your path and should have to deal with the consequences.
Hold the horse a second, "bad choice in life" is being referenced in accordance to opting-out, we are talking hypothetically about one human being willing to donate their organs to another human being after death, but some human beings more than happy to receive donations but completely against giving back once their own life ends, that's not a bad choice, that's being very selfish (IMO).
Last edited:
No, it isn't. You are still deciding what happens to your organs weather it is opt-in or opt-out.
Call it whatever you want, your the one arguing against it being donation. It is no more emotive than "harvesting" and I have no qualms about it being called that either. How about "Post Mortem Organ Relocation Programme"?
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
I would still guess it had more to do with her operation than the NHS trying to be her nanny.
If the NHS are really refusing to treat people unless they subscribe to a somewhat subjective view of how people should live then it is a scandal and need highlighting.
I'm not arguing that refusing to donate yet expecting one is selfish, but we don't generally advocate death on people for being selfish and I think once you introduce the notion that people's lives will be decided based on their choices in life and not (as currently) their need, I think we'd be setting a very dangerous precedent.
Again, since when have we allowed people to die based on their selfishness? How far do you take that principle? What if you have two registered donors in need and can only give it to one, do you then start judging them on how many pints of blood they've given or how many charity bake sales they've attended?
What next? You can't be treated fort cancer unless you've participated in the race for life, we won't treat your heart attack because you've never donated to the British Heart Foundation? These are all pretty much the same principle as telling a non-organ donor they can't have their organ because they never did anything to help the cause previously.
That principle (thankfully) isn't in place anywhere in the NHS, and I would actually protest against it if it were introduced anywhere, including donations.
Just for the record, I am for the opt-out system. But I'll never support priority lists being based on need and match being replaced by lists based on donor registration history/philosophical reasoning.
Last edited:
That's a very naive assumption. So is the rest of it for that matter along with having some severe ethical flaws and implications you've ignored that I've already mentioned.
I've been on the organ donation register since i was 16, I think it would be rather selfish to have received a cornea in the past and another in the very near future not to be an organ donor. I would also donate blood if they'd let me too.
In my opinion anything that increases the availability of organs for transplant is a good thing. Although i do understand Castiel's point of view, an enforced choice when you receive your national insurance card which you can change later if you change your mind later in life would be a better solution.
In my opinion anything that increases the availability of organs for transplant is a good thing. Although i do understand Castiel's point of view, an enforced choice when you receive your national insurance card which you can change later if you change your mind later in life would be a better solution.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
In Elmarko's world only the scientists and staff members of the pharmaceutical companies that grow them would be allowed to have them
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
If Castiel is so against opt-out systems, why does he spend so much time defending religion and religious schools? The attitude of religious parents is very much 'my child is Muslim/Christian/Catholic etc' until they tell me otherwise. Organised Religion is very much an opt-out thing for most people.
The system is changing from an altruistic one to a presumed consent one, and that is a fundamental change.
The problem I see with this kind of presumption is that silence is presumed to mean consent and that is a dangerous presumption to make...there may be a myriad of reasons why an individual has not opted out, including a lack of understanding of the process, not having the mental acuity to make such a decision in an informed way, not having access to the process for some reason or not being aware of the process and I am sure that you are able to discern the rest and possibly more.
I feel that better ways could possibly be found that do not make a presumption, such as Family Consent being found at such a time as necessary (as in the US) or a system whereby consent is sought at predetermined stages in a persons life, such as their Age of Majority....I have no specific opposition to a compulsory system which asks for a choice at a predetermined time as long as their is no discrimination or prejudice attached to whatever choice is made and that the individual has the choice to abstain if they wish and can retract whatever choice they made at a later date if they so wish. We could potentially add it to the Census for example.
I am opposed only to the concept of presumed consent, not the concept of Organ Donor-ship which I support.
The Govt have not decided anything for you, it has made no choice it has simply not exercised any definitive position on your behalf, as it is a null position, no consent or objection is registered so no action is taken.
I think it is similar to a conscientious objection, as the objection is one of conscience. You could argue the same selfishness is inherent in such a position. I wouldn't agree as I feel that an individual should not be prejudiced against because of a statement of conscience.
I feel that in all cases where a specific statement of consent or objection has not been made, the decision should be one made by the family and not the State, and in the (I would suspect quite rare) situations where no consent can not be sought then the position should be one of Do Nothing.
I am aware that there is some things in society that I cannot change as an individual alone, although I can potentially change anything if I have enough support or if I wish to object and pay the consequences under the law as it stands. I do not see the comparison between paying Taxes as set by an elected Govt and the default position of the State over the disposition of my Body if and when I die and have not made a specified choice. Consent (where appropriate) should always be a sought position, not a presumed one. I feel that is a fundamental right that every individual should have.