For those who are in favour - do you want your estate donated to 'the poor' when you die?
Dude that's completely irrelevant, your family can use your house to live in, what are they going to do with your organs? Have an organ-fight? Come on..
For those who are in favour - do you want your estate donated to 'the poor' when you die?
For the benefit of future posters, please don't claim that most don't donate but really, secretly wanted to.
For those who are in favour - do you want your estate donated to 'the poor' when you die?
Have a look through this thread as an example. How many people have said they wouldnt mind donating, but arent registered? Now stop making stupid rules to support your ideas.
Dude that's completely irrelevant, your family can use your house to live in, what are they going to do with your organs? Have an organ-fight? Come on..
LOL, exactly Organs have NO use to you.
I am not going to ask why you don't want to donate, but if your life depends on, for example, a heart transplant, will you choose to die rather than accepting the transplant?
For the benefit of future posters, please don't claim that most don't donate but really, secretly wanted to.
For those who are in favour - do you want your estate donated to 'the poor' when you die?
I get the feeling you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, if you're so strongly against the idea then why not just opt out when the time comes along? I'm pretty sure it'll be well publicised and just as easy as opting in is currently.
If that's the case then you don't understand my argument. It's not the practicality for me, its the philosophy that the government can do what they want with something of yours - usually this attitude has NEVER extended to the body.
It's a significant step for a government that is seeking to control various aspects of our lives.
Consider... if you are prime donation fodder then you are more likely to have the Docs throw in the towel early to keep you nice and fresh for the next recipient(s).
Should they need to demonstrate a use for your possessions once you are dead? Is the desire to keep them or use them as they wish not enough?
The government may decide that your family already has 'enough money' or make them demonstrate their poverty once you are dead in order to get your estate - would this be acceptable?
It is just tissue, do you keep all your baby teeth and wear them on a necklace? do you sweep the hair off the floor after a hair cut and store it in bag and treasure it forever? do you store all your finger nails in a jar next to your bed or what?
No one seems to be able to come up with a good reason for why they need their organs other than "i want em" which I would normally agree with but not when it means someone else is going to die or it wastes other tax money being spent to fix a medical issue that could be resolved by a transplant.
I don't think this thread is representative of the general population. Isn't it actually the government making stupid rules to support their ideas?
This whole system is a pretence on the concept of consent. The general philosophy is that if someone WANTS something, they express it. To assume that they want it because they have not expressed it is a philosophical step over the line and should not be entertained lest it be used elsewhere.
You do still have a choice, if you feel strongly about the issue you can opt out. Consent or denial of it is still within the options available to you, the only difference is that the onus has changed so that people who don't feel strongly are presumed to have consented. If that isn't you then you can object and you would be taken off the register.
It is a rather different argument, possessions can be used, I'm not entirely sure of where organs would be used outwith transplants - you maybe have voodoo and there are certain religious beliefs where your body must remain whole in order to pass into the afterlife (as you were in life you are in death), albeit this ignores that if you were dismembered by say stepping in front of a train you won't be whole anyway.
I think you need to drop the philosophy from the argument, people come in to hospital after suicide attempts, injuries..etc and it is assumed that they want treatment if they cant express it themselves. Implied consent has existed within medicine for decades and is not a new idea.....
I don't think this thread is representative of the general population. Isn't it actually the government making stupid rules to support their ideas?