Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by anarchist, 17 Jul 2007.
Suits me. I give about 1/8th of my blood away every 3 months (or is it 4?). I don't think I'd miss the other bits if I'm dead.
Can't see why not; what else are you going to do with them? Better saving someone's life than stuck in the ground/cremated.
This is how it should be, use my bits unless I specifically opt out!
Good, hope it gets somewhere.
Is anyone going to disagree with this?
The one problem i have with this is the fact that currently when a patient is found to be a registered donor alot of medical workers dont work as hard to save them as their organs can be used to save maybe 4 people.
Before anyone is rash and dismisses my comment i heard this from a friend of mine who is a nurse who has even had doctors hint to her to let someone slip if they are found to be a donor.
I think this idea is fantastic, however, ive expressed my conerns.
So a doctor may have hinted to a nurse that this may happen!
I think donation by default is a great thing as long as people have the option to choose otherwise.
Even if that was true (and I don't believe it for one second; I know several doctors and nurses too) then increasing the number of organ donors would only reduce the need for doctors to let their donor patients die as there'd be plenty of other donors who couldn't be saved anyway.
This is the way it should have been in the first place.
As long as it is made very clear that you must opt out if you don't want to donate a part.
I dont think there should even be an opt out option.
Religious people perhaps? I listened to "Beyond Belief" last week on radio 4 and they were talking about organ donation and one of the religious people on the programme said that they would only give their organs if it was to save a life.
The atheist on the programme (who they always throw in to cause trouble ) made a great point I thought, when he said "Who would want to believe in a God so wicked and cruel that if you donated your corneas in this life, he would make you blind for eternity in the afterlife" <which was the religious person's basic point - that you need to preserve your body for use in the afterlife>.
No problem with it,i`m already on the donor list.
Just a sensible option IMHO.
i find that very difficult to believe ive been a nurse for 11 years now and worked in theatres, ITU, and general surgery wards and never ever heard such an thing.
as for guarenteeing a better suply of organs im all for it. the amount of kids i know that need new lungs and a heart is getting unbearable.
Yeah, I'd be all for it, so long as people can opt out.
That being said, I can't really think of any religions (the only objectors anyone has thought of) that would forbid it... not even the JWs if the organ transplants are done carefully, as their only objection as I understand it is to the spilling of blood.
Why do you think this.
I agree with the aethiest that Anarchist has quoted. I'd consider it backward and wrong to let religeon interfere with something of this nature.
Suprised to see that the poll on the BBC website is currently...
Should organ donation be automatic unless you opt out?
Yes - 63.63%
No - 31.79%
Not sure - 4.57%
7088 Votes Cast
Thought it would be more like 75% Yes
Separate names with a comma.