Organ donor system "presumed consent"

Associate
Joined
21 Jun 2004
Posts
1,603
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.
 
Permabanned
Joined
5 Nov 2007
Posts
694
LOL, exactly Organs have NO use to you. They have a use to someone else. my money would have use to my family, now if you said you wanted your organs to be frozen incase your kids need them then fair enough but as it is they are just going to rot in the ground.
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Nov 2004
Posts
24,654
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.

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?
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Nov 2004
Posts
24,654
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..

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?
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Nov 2004
Posts
24,654
LOL, exactly Organs have NO use to you.

This is a subjective assumption that your organs would be of no use to yourself or your family once you die, it is FINE if you want this - it is FINE if the government offers this option - it is not fine if they force it on those who have not suggested otherwise.
 
Permabanned
Joined
9 Apr 2006
Posts
1,608
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?

No I would obviously take the heart. But no ones having mine.
Which I realise makes me very selfish.
 
Permabanned
Joined
15 Sep 2007
Posts
969
Location
Edinburgh
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?

No, I want it given to my relatives, and would want the same priority given with my organs if my relatives required them.

If I had no relatives and the alternative was my estate disappearing and no use coming of it, then yes, I would want it donated to the poor.


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.
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Nov 2004
Posts
24,654
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.
 
Permabanned
Joined
5 Nov 2007
Posts
694
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 am certain this system is in use elsewhere in the world, would be interesting to take a look at their waiting lists and how much they spend on dyalisys etc compared to us.
 
Permabanned
Joined
15 Sep 2007
Posts
969
Location
Edinburgh
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.

Opt out, and no they can't.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
27 Sep 2004
Posts
25,821
Location
Glasgow
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).

The Hippocratic oath says no. So I don't think you need worry unduly about this.

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?

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.
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Nov 2004
Posts
24,654
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, nor does anyone take these from me. If I wanted to keep these, should I have to inform anyone?

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 want them" is enough reason in its own, when society decides to force things upon the individual things are grim for us all. If our government does not trust us in a decision as important as what happens to our own bodies and how we wish to die, what other seemingly unimportant things will they 'assume' we WANT done to us.

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.
 
Associate
Joined
21 Jun 2004
Posts
1,603
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?

No, the government are actually making (for once) a well reasoned change to organ donation policy due to the poor rates of donation within the UK compared to the rest of europe. What exactly is your problem with this? You seem to float around and attack different ideas involved, but you haven't said specifically what you are against. Why isn't the opt-out system good enough? DO you honestly believe that the lives helped by the increased donation are outweighed by your feelings that the governemnt are claiming your organs without "consent" if you dont take the time to opt-out of the new system?
 
Associate
Joined
21 Jun 2004
Posts
1,603
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.

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.....
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Nov 2004
Posts
24,654
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.

Again, I own my organs so there is no choice. In the eyes of the government you have already made the choice that when your pulse stops, your organs are theirs.

You claim that I still have the choice, but I HAVE THE CHOICE NOW. The difference is the assumption of who decides the fate of your organs once you die, and the implication of possession.

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.

To view organs as possessions is the safetest argument - otherwise they are PART OF YOU regardless of whether you are alive or dead and it is certainly not the choice of the government whether they can modify you.
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Nov 2004
Posts
24,654
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.....

There is no assumption of treatment, as already covered. There is a philosophical requirement to treat those that can't communicate.

Also, consent to give benefit to someone on the basis of assumption is different from to take something on the basis that they do not want it.

But also, it is equally accepted to allow someone to have their self-determination. For example, suicide is no longer illegal, and the Samaritans are not urged to stop someone from committing suicide.
 
Permabanned
Joined
15 Sep 2007
Posts
969
Location
Edinburgh
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?

I think this is fairly representative of the general population actually. A fair number of my friends are not organ donors, and when I asked them why they replied "I've never got round to registering." Judging by the way you're going on about the government controlling us maaaaaan[/n] then your acquaintances are probably much the same, but nonetheless I still struggle to see why you oppose your organs helping someone after you die.

The government don't steal them and put them in a big tank of organs, they give them to someone else to benefit their life. Considering it's not based on religion etc, your current view just comes across as selfish.
 
Back
Top Bottom