Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
But if your decision is the one that determines you as a donor, whether you opt in or opt out, then you have rights over your body over the state.
lolwut?
Poll: Poll: Organ donation opt out
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
But if your decision is the one that determines you as a donor, whether you opt in or opt out, then you have rights over your body over the state.
lolwut?
No, but it is a matter of principal not materialism. Many areas of our society are built on principals, it's what has made it such a good one to live in.
There's no point in this discussion going any further as I don't have to convince you of anything
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 1,750
There is enough money for everybody to get the healthcare that they need through the NHS regardless of what they've paid in.
The issue is that organs are in very short supply at the moment and that is what is being tackled. There simply isn't enough organs for everybody that needs them and so something needs to be done. The availability of an organ is something that money cannot buy. There are two solutions. Force people to give their organs, or be selective on who gets organs. The auto opt-in is partly forcing people to give organs but if everyone opts out then there still won't be enough organs. Being selective on who gets organs is the only other alternative. Unless you have another idea to make sure that there are enough organs?
I can see what you're saying to an extent though from an ethical standpoint that it would be hard to let people die just because they opted out. Would you consider that priority should be given to those on the organ donor list (unless not possible for other medical reasons)? I just don't feel that it's acceptable to opt out of donating but then expect to receive equal priority when in need to somebody who was willing to donate their organs.
Again, this is a little different in that there is generally enough blood donated for both those who have donated and those who haven't which isn't the case with organs.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
What about principles such as not being wasteful, willing to help others when it not at a cost to your own?
Principles are what is instilled onto us as a result of growing up in a certain kind of society. It may seem more important to you now to have an opt in system but that is probably because that is the system we have always had. If we grew up in a world where it was opt out, your opinion would likely be different. fact is, in an opt out world, less people would die.
Never know you might "cure" him. Like that evil hand thing but for good
.So has a wide range of healthy individuals contributing to it.
I do get what you're saying but I feel opt out is a long way from any negative effects of government ownership.
So people should die because you are creeped out by something that literally has no effect on you, as you will be dead?
Sterling reasoning old chap!
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 1,750
I don't think of it as my body going to "the state", I think of it as my body going to one or two lucky people to help them stay alive thus benefitting them and their families.
It's like when I donate to charity. I don't think of my money going to a large corporate charity, I think of the small bit of help that one end beneficiary gets from my small donation.
I am happy to give my organs but as I said before the argument against it is one of principle not practicality. We could mince healthy dead bodies and use the meat as dog food. This would be a practical use of the meat...do we do it...no of course we don't because it's a matter of principle.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
I think this whole property of the state thing is nonsense and a wrong interpretation of this opt out system.
Your body is yours, in or opt out. When you die and if you are a donor, the state has the right to allow your organs to be donated for medical use.
There is no need to fear Boris running around wearing your skin because you decided to not fill out a 5 minute form during your lifetime...
What about principles such as not wasting your body when it could save a life and such?
If someones own principles (principles being a personal thing) mattered so much, a 5 minute form would be a small thing to fill out so they can opt out.
You think it goes against your principles to have an opt out system because you don't want the government to have rights to donate your organs by default. Personally an opt in system which leaves tens of thousands on the donor lists waiting for vital transplants goes against my principles of helping those who need it when it costs you nothing.
Your body is yours, in or opt out. When you die and if you are a donor, the state has the right to allow your organs to be donated for medical use.
There is no need to fear Boris running around wearing your skin because you decided to not fill out a 5 minute form during your lifetime...
What about principles such as not wasting your body when it could save a life and such?
If someones own principles (principles being a personal thing) mattered so much, a 5 minute form would be a small thing to fill out so they can opt out.
You think it goes against your principles to have an opt out system because you don't want the government to have rights to donate your organs by default. Personally an opt in system which leaves tens of thousands on the donor lists waiting for vital transplants goes against my principles of helping those who need it when it costs you nothing.
That's a straw(dead)man though, as humans are not viable dog food as we are not reared for consumption by the same guidelines that livestock are. And even if we were, you would be comparing the benefit of a few meals for a pet, to what could be decades of continued life for another human.
There is no shortage of dog food. There is a huge shortage of viable organs for transplant.
Scunthorpe United fans actually.
Associate
- Joined
- 6 May 2016
- Posts
- 693
Because the person who didn't opt-out might not want their organs to go to someone who did. Personally I wouldn't, it's spite yes, however on the other hand opting out is selfish. I do give blood, however if I didn't and needed it, I would understand if blood donors only wanted theirs to go to someone who did. I'm happy for mine to at the moment as there are many reasons people can't give blood. Not many reasons for not wanting your otherwise useless dead body find some use.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 3,072
I had a liver transplant almost a year ago so personally I wholeheartedly agree with this policy.
When I was a smug teenager and thought I was the apex of humanity I thought no way no one is having my perfect organs when I die, they are mine!. Now I'm older and wiser and less of a **** I see the folly of my youth and I'll gladly be an organ donor... upon my death ;p I can't stress that enough.
I agree with this change and I'll stay in the scheme.
I agree with this change and I'll stay in the scheme.
Last edited:
The reason is simple - some people think that consent is important. Too important to be assumed.
I've also been registered as a donor for as long as I can remember. The date on the donor card currently in my wallet is 1998, but that's only because the one I had before fell apart over the years. Obviously it's now computerised, but when I registered it was all about a physical card and having it on you so if you were almost dead and unable to speak they could search you for a donor card. So much so that "carry the card" was the slogan for the adverts around that time.
I think that it should remain opt-in but be promoted more.
It’s very simple really, those that feel passionately about donating sign up. If everyone passionate about it signed up then it wouldn’t be a problem in the first place. The fact is lots of people talk it up about being passionate about donating but then are too ******* lazy to sort it out which causes the problem.
Last edited:
That's actually a genuine ethical debate.
A person comes in to hospital badly damaged. You have two options:
1) Spend £500K of medical resources to try to save them and they may well die anyway.
2) Harvest their organs, save three people and still have a fair bit of the £500K you didn't spend left to help some other people.
Which is the more ethical course of action?