Presumed consent organ donation

[elmarko]

I'm not offended, just disappointed that you would take advantage of my example in such a way, that you think it is acceptable to undermine my objectivity to try to gain advantage in a debate then I underestimated you (I'm am not sure that was your intention however, i hope it wasn't) As I said, in such an example I would not act in a rational or objective way, so any reply I would give would be an emotional one, not an objective one and therefore would be pretty useless in this debate...I perhaps should have made my example more generic, but I was trying to convey the personal way in which people see theirs and their close ones death...rather than the distant, externalised way in which you see death. As I said it is a fundamental difference in how we approach the validity of the position on Assumed Consent.

It wasn't an attempt to undermine objectivity.

It's related to holding perspectives which would relate to the self & others.

As I said in the latter half of my post.

If I can say now, without emotion or without any impaired rationality that the life of a family member or loved one is more ethical importance than the express wishes of a dead person - then it's only fair to extend that perspective to include that the life of other peoples loved ones are more important than the express wishes of numerous dead people.

(not that that's even being suggested, as they would still have their choice respected - just a change in assumption).

You seem intent on the assumption that opting out and not opting in are the same thing, when they are not....no one is killing anyone by excising their choice to have their body buried intact for example.....those people would have died if that person had not died anyway, it is disingenuous to make that connection.

It's not that quite cut & clear - in some cases people will have died because of the direct desire of others to have the body buried in-tact.

I am, neither is anyone else that I can see, opposed to organ donation...they are opposed to the concept of assumed consent...which is totally different to the way you are framing your argument in favour of assumed consent.

I'm simply highlighting this isn't a Pepsi or Coke, cremation or burial, religious or non-religious choice which has no impact.

The choice related to organ donation has an impact.

 

[skippy2421]

As I've said about 50 times if you read the thread, I was saying "If I was harsher I'd support this".

I'm sorry you think a hard limitation is the same as a soft limitation (funding can be reallocated, increased new organs can't yet be fabricated.) - but it doesn't make it so.

But if you read above, you would see I don't support that system either - just that it's what some of this stupid population deserve (not that I'd inflict that on them).

COME ON! you did bring his son into the debate. You sepcifically said his son and it was obviously going to get an emotive response that would undermine his argument. If you didn't want to bring his son into it you wouldn't have said his son and kept it generic. The answer was going to be obvious anyway as all fathers would pretty much do anything to save their kids. Hopefully this was an unintentional low blow on your part but considering how well thought out your other posts are I'm somewhat sceptical.

EDIT as you've responded. Then if your point was to assess the importance of the right to live of someone close over the right of someone who's dead to dispose of their body as they please then why bring in his son at all? You're not dim you knew what the answer would be. Surely we don't want emotion anywhere near this argument so why does it matter the relation to the living party if we want a rational debate because making them a loved one only introduces emotion.

Sure money could be re-allocated but you only create other governmental problems elsewhere in doing so you're just solving (or maybe not even solving at all) one problem and creating more elsewhere. But now I'm getting sidetracked on to a wider debate onto public spending. The point was there are other finite resources.

To the crux of the argument though . There are plenty of other ways as Castiel has highlighted as a means to raise donations that don't involve encroaching on civil liberties. Would it not make much more sense to explore these first before diving in at the extreme end?

 

[Castiel]

(not that that's even being suggested, as they would still have their choice respected - just a change in assumption).

Except it not simply a change in assumption....the state is now assuming a decision was made, before there was no assumption of any decision...it was a null premise and no action is taken.

It's not that quite cut & clear - in some cases people will have died because of the direct desire of others to have the body buried in-tact.

No, they would have died because they had lung cancer or a heart defect or liver disease.....not because someone else did not make a choice.

I'm simply highlighting this isn't a Pepsi or Coke, cremation or burial, religious or none religious choice which has no impact.

I would be opposed to Assumed Consent by the State in other circumstances, with the exception of where the individual whose consent is being assumed is unable to express their choice and that assumption of their wishes gives them the opportunity to express such at a latter date...such as emergency medical treatment.

The choice related to organ donation has an impact.

So do the choices that the person requiring the donation potentially made...the responsibility should not be passed onto someone who chooses what to do with their own body. We can all live on one kidney..does my decision not to donate one to a stranger who may need it make me responsible for their death?

 

[elmarko]

COME ON! you did bring his son into the debate. You sepcifically said his son and it was obviously going to get an emotive response that would undermine his argument. If you didn't want to bring his son into it you wouldn't have said his son and kept it generic. The answer was going to be obvious anyway as all fathers would pretty much do anything to save their kids. Hopefully this was an unintentional low blow on your part but considering how well thought out your other posts are I'm somewhat sceptical.

As I said above, I didn't mention it to begin with - it was responding to his post about a theoretical scenario with his son.

If you read about I explain why it's relevant (as it should be basis of our ethical views).

To the crux of the argument though . There are plenty of other ways as Castiel has highlighted as a means to raise donations that don't involve encroaching on civil liberties. Would it not make much more sense to explore these first before diving in at the extreme end?

I said multiple times I'd be more than happy to see different ideas which didn't involve on any perceived attacks on liberty & any solution which worked best would be ideal.

I'm simply arguing against the idea than an opt out system is a huge moral problem, I don't believe ethically it is - or on a wider stance that the rights of people who are dead are that important.

 

[Castiel]

I'm simply arguing against the idea than an opt out system is a huge moral problem, I don't believe ethically it is - or on a wider stance that the rights of people who are dead are that important.

Except it isn't the rights of the dead that are being considered here, but the rights of the living to determine for themselves how they are treated in death, and the rights of the family to determine how their loved ones are interred without the assumption being determined by the State.

 

[skippy2421]

As I said above, I didn't mention it to begin with - it was responding to his post about a theoretical scenario with his son.

Was there a need to continue it though given the purpose of your question that you have stated above when it was obvious you'd not get a rational answer?

If you read about I explain why it's relevant (as it should be basis of our ethical views).

I don't see why the relation is relevant at all in an argument of what is essentially principles. As soon as you introduce the concept of it being a relation all rationality has disappeared from the argument.

I said multiple times I'd be more than happy to see different ideas which didn't involve on any perceived attacks on liberty & any solution which worked best would be ideal.

I'm simply arguing against the idea than an opt out system is a huge moral problem, I don't believe ethically it is - or on a wider stance that the rights of people who are dead are that important.

Well define "best". the opt out solution will probably be the best for increasing "donations" but it certainly isn't for people's rights to determine what they do with their and their relatives bodies. If we're after a solution that'll probably reach the same amount of donations with no controversy with regards to rights then there probably isn't one until we can grow them.

Ofcourse it's a huge moral problem not to mention may pose practical problems too when those with religious beliefs get their bits cut out because they forgot to opt out and their family members didn't happen to be there to object. I see big legal cases here. Essentially the state is dictating what gets done with our bodies. Not opting out is not the same as consenting especially as there will be a huge amount that will not be aware of what is happening despite the media hype.

 

[Bobcat]

I personally now hold out more hope than ever before of the same system coming to England. I know some people will want to opt-out of this for real reasons and fine - that is how the system is designed to work.
However I also know some people will opt-out for no-existent reasons - and you guys.....I'm just lost for words.

This will not come into force until 2015 in Wales (the sooner the better imo), so perhaps even longer to be in place in England (if at all), but i share your view too that its very sad when people are prepared to take, but refuse to give back, but i have come to the conclusion that the takers will keep taking and the givers will keep giving.

Even if the bill does not get passed in England/Scotland, the increased organ donations from Wales will be distributed into England/Scotland, so to all the haters, there is no need to get all wound up about it, you can keep rebelling and refusing (opting out) and still reap the rewards of increased organ donations from us in Wales

 

[RDM]

This will not come into force until 2015 in Wales (the sooner the better imo), so perhaps even longer to be in place in England (if at all), but i share your view too that its very sad when people are prepared to take, but refuse to give back, but i have come to the conclusion that the takers will keep taking and the givers will keep giving.

You are aware that most of the people arguing against an opt out system in this thread are already registered as organ donors?

 

[Freakbro]

You are aware that most of the people arguing against an opt out system in this thread are already registered as organ donors?

Which is why it is even more of a ridiculous stance to take to then refuse to be part of the organ relocation program based on some principled stance of state authority.

But, who cares, it's their choice [Which they still have ] their organs won't be missed within the general increase in availability.

 

[Bobcat]

You are aware that most of the people arguing against an opt out system in this thread are already registered as organ donors?

Fully aware, but as Freakbro says it just makes it even more ridiculous, but my post was in relation to the thread starter (stoofa), sharing their views.

Keep your organs, don't keep them, stay on the donor list or not (in its current form) its up to you

BTW, Do you live in Wales ?

 

[skippy2421]

Which is why it is even more of a ridiculous stance to take to then refuse to be part of the organ relocation program based on some principled stance of state authority.
.

Why is it ridiculous? it's a form of protest.

Don't get me wrong I won't be opting out as a result as I feel if my organs can save someone, they shouldn't be punished for what I feel is an incorrect policy. So it doesn't affect me much as I will remain a donor but I understand why people would take issue with it. It's further state intrusion into our lives in an era that is surrounded by news and fear mongering of the state further and further eroding at our civil liberties. Is it that surprising or ridiculous that those who hold their civil liberties higher in their order of priorities than say me or you want to protest about this?

 

[Xordium]

/snip

Organ donation the crux of the issue of this thread.

More donors are needed. You will see I don't argue against this - I agree with this - however I know there are alternatives that if funded better will offer better outcomes. I believe that funding and effort should be used to produce the maximum good to the target group. Your own cut and paste substantiates what I have been saying.

I have yet to see one shred of evidence from you or anyone else to demonstrate:

We would get the organs we need from optout.
It would be the definitive treatment for such people.
We could not gain the same result from another method.

Seems to me there is one side arguing with evidence and the other side with emotion here.

 

[glenimp617]

stem cell research

grow our own organs

 

[Omaeka]

Is this for when people die? Why would anyone be against their organs being donated upon death? It's not like you'll need them... Could save a life or ten. I bet 90% of the religious nuts who are against having their organs harvested would jump at the chance to get one if they were dying. I'll happily donate, as long as I'm dead first.

 

[Xordium]

Is this for when people die? Why would anyone be against their organs being donated upon death? It's not like you'll need them... Could save a life or ten. I bet 90% of the religious nuts who are against having their organs harvested would jump at the chance to get one if they were dying. I'll happily donate, as long as I'm dead first.

1) All the major religions are not against donation.
2) You'd be better off donating when you're alive to the lists we really need to address.

 

[Omaeka]

I donate blood, and if a close friend/family member were dying I'd donate a kidney but what else can you actually donate when alive? You only have one of pretty much everything else.

 

[Woden]

I donate blood, and if a close friend/family member were dying I'd donate a kidney but what else can you actually donate when alive? You only have one of pretty much everything else.

Hair.

Not even joking.

 

[Omaeka]

Hair.

Not even joking.

Is there an actual reason to this or to help prevent baldness or something?

 

[Xordium]

I donate blood, and if a close friend/family member were dying I'd donate a kidney but what else can you actually donate when alive? You only have one of pretty much everything else.

Kidney
Liver (section of)
Lung (Lobe)
Intestine (v rare) but these such transplants aren't really successful anyway live or cadaveric
Pancreas (section of)

 

[D.P.]

Eh? It is.

When someone dies, we don't just board up their house and leave it to rot because it is "theirs" and still belongs to them. It gets given to someone else, normally a family member via a will but if none was made and no family members make a claim then it goes to the government.

Property ceases to be yours both practically and legally when you die, that is the complete opposite to what you are suggesting should happen with body parts.

Indeed, when you die your property and estate, even if given to family etc. has a large chunk automatically removed and given to the government , even when it is against the wishes of the deceased to Pay I hesitance tax.