Organ donor system "presumed consent"

Soldato
Joined
23 Nov 2002
Posts
16,167
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?

No the government doesn't need to demonstrate the use of dying organs, they can either be cremated with the rest of my body or help save someone's life, again this has nothing to do with taxes, there are many ways you can attack the government but this is just silly dude:)

No I would obviously take the heart. But no ones having mine.
Which I realise makes me very selfish.

Not selfish, just inhuman I think, but then again that's just my two pence worth!
 
Associate
Joined
21 Jun 2004
Posts
1,603
No the government doesn't need to demonstrate the use of dying organs, they can either be cremated with the rest of my body or help save someone's life, again this has nothing to do with taxes, there are many ways you can attack the government but this is just silly dude:)

I think CBS is quite known on here for attacking the `system`. I just remember a debate in the past when he said that all non-emergency medication used currently could easily be replaced by the natural remedies available from Holland & Barrett :p
 
Man of Honour
Joined
27 Sep 2004
Posts
25,821
Location
Glasgow
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.

So you haven't actually lost a choice, it is simply differently worded with a different basis for the presumption of the choice. You have 'ownership' of your organs until you die and unless you opt out then they will fall to someone (something) that can use them.

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.

I know it is the safest argument, it is the obvious one. If your religous beliefs mean you view organs as something different (or even if you just don't like the idea) then there is still a choice but it requires a little bit more effort - that is all.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
27 Sep 2004
Posts
25,821
Location
Glasgow
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.

Actually you might find it is a relatively modern thing for us to have assumed control of our own bodies. From what I am aware part of the reasoning behind suicides illegality was that the government (or rather the monarch as equivalent at the time) had control of our bodies so you couldn't opt to end your life without it being considered illegal, of course there were also the religious aspects and that of creating public distress and nuisance with the failed or successful attempts.
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Nov 2004
Posts
24,654
If your religous beliefs mean you view organs as something different (or even if you just don't like the idea) then there is still a choice but it requires a little bit more effort - that is all.

A person should not need to explain their choice as 'religious reasons' the choice of an atheist is as valid as that as any religious person. The choice has been made on assumption, and not by you.
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Nov 2004
Posts
24,654
Actually you might find it is a relatively modern thing for us to have assumed control of our own bodies. From what I am aware part of the reasoning behind suicides illegality was that the government (or rather the monarch as equivalent at the time) had control of our bodies so you couldn't opt to end your life without it being considered illegal, of course there were also the religious aspects and that of creating public distress and nuisance with the failed or successful attempts.

Legally it has been in force since 1961, all I can find is that it stems from religious attitudes which would make sense
 
Caporegime
Joined
30 Jun 2007
Posts
68,770
Location
Wales
They are bound by medical oath to do everything in their power to save my life, it is not the decision of the individual doctor. Also, that is a concept of clinical need rather than ownership.

Similarly, if I die I wouldn't like the idea that the government assumes that all my money were redistributed to people I didn't know, simply because I didn't tell them that those weren't my intentions.

err that's what they do now isn't it if you don't leave it to anyone it goes to the government?

just consider this a will for your organs.
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Nov 2004
Posts
24,654
Not sure what your argument is here, you still decide the fate of your organs, by opting out, which is the whole idea behind the system.

Yes, most people can opt out - thus having a say in the fate of their organs - and apart from the logistical problems of such a system, bear in mind that no-one should decide the fate of my property or of ME.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
8,444
Location
Leamington Spa
Very few people explicitly state what they want to be done with their body before they die. The government have to make some assumption in most cases. Why is the assumption they want to donate any less valid than the assumption they want their body given to their next of kin? Or the assumption they want it buried in the ground?
 
Caporegime
Joined
30 Jun 2007
Posts
68,770
Location
Wales
A person should not need to explain their choice as 'religious reasons' the choice of an atheist is as valid as that as any religious person. The choice has been made on assumption, and not by you.

no ones asking you to explain, all it will mean is you have to tick a box probably on your driving license application, and your family will still most likely be able to say no to them taking your organs.

(which many donor families still do :()

Also when you die you cease to own any thing, so you have to ask someone to take your stuff or it would just be nicked/ destroyed.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
27 Sep 2004
Posts
25,821
Location
Glasgow
A person should not need to explain their choice as 'religious reasons' the choice of an atheist is as valid as that as any religious person. The choice has been made on assumption, and not by you.

That was the "or if you just don't like the idea". I'm not debating whether the choices of an atheist are as valid as those of a theist, they are, but the majority of objections to organ donation would seem to stem from religious views.

You don't need to explain your choices as far as I can tell, all you would need to do is to opt out of the system which will have to be pretty simple "tick no and enter your details to be removed from the register". The opt in is certainly about that level so I see no obvious reason why the opt out would be of any greater complexity. So you can opt out because of religious reasons, because you don't like the idea, because you don't like the presumption, because.... and no one is authority is about to question you for it.
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Nov 2004
Posts
24,654
no ones asking you to explain, all it will mean is you have to tick a box probably on your driving license application, and your family will still most likely be able to say no to them taking your organs.

(which many donor families still do :()

As long as it comes with the assumption that your organs should stay in your body under all necessary circumstances then I'm all for it.

My only disagreement with this system is the 'informed consent' aspect. I'd love to see everyone offered the chance to donate.

Also when you die you cease to own any thing, so you have to ask someone to take your stuff or it would just be nicked/ destroyed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intestacy
 
Back
Top Bottom