1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Organ donor system "presumed consent"

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Teki187, Jan 13, 2008.

  1. Wicksta

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Sep 14, 2005

    Posts: 10,445

    Location: Burnham, Bucks

    Why would you care? You're dead.
     
  2. Tom0

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 9,623

    Location: South Wales

    Don't need them when you're dead.
     
  3. cleanbluesky

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 2, 2004

    Posts: 24,654

    Why would I care? Does consent not count after death?

    Why stop at organs? Why not have your skull turned into an ashtray, you're dead? Why not deliberately kill people, they wont like the prospect but afterwards they wont care - they're DEAD. Should the government take your car, money, house as well once you've died?

    Regardless of WHY I care, I don't want a system whereby effective ownership of my internal organs is given to the government. Increasing donation is fine, but claiming ownership is not.

     
  4. Wicksta

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Sep 14, 2005

    Posts: 10,445

    Location: Burnham, Bucks

    So by carrying a donor card I should expect my head to be turned into an ashtray and my car, money and house to be taken by the government?

    This is not about ownership of your organs, it's changing a scheme from an opt in one to an opt out one. Even then your relatives can stop your organs being used. You are being slightly overdramatic if you ask me.
     
  5. pyro

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 23, 2002

    Posts: 16,167

    CBS why are you bringing the government to it? Brow isn't going to make a collection of livers above his fireplace, they just want more people to survive, why is that bad? The have your say comment is just lame by the way :o
     
  6. JayMax

    Mobster

    Joined: Nov 2, 2002

    Posts: 2,765

    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).
     
  7. Tom0

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Aug 29, 2003

    Posts: 9,623

    Location: South Wales

    I never thought of that factor, presumed consent opens a window for corruption... very good point.
     
  8. Jon Frost

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Apr 9, 2006

    Posts: 1,608

    As long as the 'opt out' is easy, im happy for this. I'll be opting out though. :)
     
  9. pyro

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 23, 2002

    Posts: 16,167

    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?
     
  10. cleanbluesky

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 2, 2004

    Posts: 24,654

    No-one has suggested that... would you have something against this? Your argument was that it wouldn't matter if you were dead.

    This is about organ ownership because, unless you ask them not to, the government can take your organs once you die. They are claiming authority on how they use your bodily parts, which should never be the case.

    Why should I be under any pressure by anyone to stop them from taking my possessions once I am dead?
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2008
  11. PikeyPriest

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jun 21, 2004

    Posts: 1,103

    A good step. Britain has one of the worst rates for organ donation in Europe and it needed a change. You dont need the organs if you are dead, so why on earth would you object to them being used to save someones life.
     
  12. cleanbluesky

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 2, 2004

    Posts: 24,654

    Regardless of whether you NEED your organs, you should still be in charge of deciding what happens to them without having to inform anyone else, rather than needing to ask the government not to take them.

    Also, given the multitude of other options - such an idea shows the deep lack of respect that the government has for the self-determination of the general population.

    I believe that many who agree with this are so institutionalised that all they recognise is the good aspect of organ donation. They are ignoring the fact that the government believe it is okay to take your possessions unless you ask them not to - what faulted logic make the government believe they can take anything from you automatically?
     
  13. PikeyPriest

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jun 21, 2004

    Posts: 1,103

    Thats rubbish. The government aren't claiming ownership at all. The system is just being changed to reflect the fact that most people would be happy to donate organs, but never fill out an organ donation form. The minority (maybe yourself included) who are strongly against it are still free to claim your body parts back if you want. Its simple, if you dont wish to donate opt-out. Then there is no worry the government will be "stealing" parts of your body after death.
     
  14. PikeyPriest

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jun 21, 2004

    Posts: 1,103

    Its an opt-out system, therefore you are in control of what happens to your organs.....
     
  15. cleanbluesky

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 2, 2004

    Posts: 24,654

    If the government aren't claiming ownership then they are stealing, given that a person may NOT have given consent.

    There is no information to guaruntee that 'most people are happy' or as to why many do not complete organ donation cards - although I expect its because most people are secretly hoping that the government will harvest their organs once they without consent.

    I also think that you have no idea how many are against this, and that your argument is now based on two assumptions that you have not measured. See the flawed logic of assumption, and yet the government would happily use the same method to take organs.
     
  16. cleanbluesky

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 2, 2004

    Posts: 24,654

    No, I have to ask someone else not to take my organs. Is there any other system of property whereby I would ASK someone not to take it? If someone takes something without me asking them to take it, is that not stealing? If they take it without me saying a word, does that not imply that ownership is theirs to decide?

    It concerns me that many are not examining the spiritual and philosophical aspects of such a scheme.
     
  17. MHayes

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Nov 5, 2007

    Posts: 694

    I agree with this 100%, although I really hate the gov interfearing with my body and mind and the whole nanny state business this is not a bad idea. You are dead, who gives a crap other than a load of religious tards???

    The donor waiting list is very long but this could be sovled easily by this, most people don't donate because they can't be arsed. As said I do agree it should be very easy to opt out of, in which case it should also be very easy for these inconsiderate people to be put to the back of the queue so that when they get ill they are ******.
     
  18. cleanbluesky

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 2, 2004

    Posts: 24,654

    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.
     
  19. cleanbluesky

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 2, 2004

    Posts: 24,654

    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?
     
  20. MHayes

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Nov 5, 2007

    Posts: 694

    I am happy to donate but I have yet to register. So at this moment in time if I died no one would get my organs but I would be quite happy for anyone who needs them to have them...