Organ donor system "presumed consent"

Wicksta · 13 Jan 2008 at 11:19

cleanbluesky said:
Also, what if this were the thin end of the wedge? What other parts of my body might go to 'scientific causes' on what grounds?

Why would you care? You're dead.

Tom0 · 13 Jan 2008 at 11:22

Don't need them when you're dead.

cleanbluesky · 13 Jan 2008 at 11:26

Wicksta said:
Why would you care? You're dead.

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.

From BBC 'Have your say' said:
I went to school - they taught me what to think!

I went to work - they took 45% of what I earned!

I had children - they told me how to parent and who my kids would mix with and how they would learn

I died - they took my body parts for their 'better world' schemes!

Wicksta · 13 Jan 2008 at 11:34

cleanbluesky said:
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.

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.

pyro · 13 Jan 2008 at 11:34

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

JayMax · 13 Jan 2008 at 11:43

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).

Tom0 · 13 Jan 2008 at 11:50

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

Jon Frost · 13 Jan 2008 at 11:53

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

pyro · 13 Jan 2008 at 11:57

Jon Frost said:
As long as the 'opt out' is easy, im happy for this. I'll be opting out though.

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?

cleanbluesky · 13 Jan 2008 at 12:05

Wicksta said:
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?

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 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.

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?

PikeyPriest · 13 Jan 2008 at 12:08

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.

cleanbluesky · 13 Jan 2008 at 12:12

PikeyPriest said:
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.

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?

PikeyPriest · 13 Jan 2008 at 12:12

cleanbluesky said:
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?

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.

PikeyPriest · 13 Jan 2008 at 12:13

cleanbluesky said:
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.

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

cleanbluesky · 13 Jan 2008 at 12:17

PikeyPriest said:
Thats rubbish. The government are 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.

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.

cleanbluesky · 13 Jan 2008 at 12:18

PikeyPriest said:
Its an opt-out system, therefore you are in control of what happens to your organs.....

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.

MHayes · 13 Jan 2008 at 12:21

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 ******.

cleanbluesky · 13 Jan 2008 at 12:22

Moses99p said:
what about when you are injured and medical care could save your life, maybe you need to be given blood or organs to survive, should they assume you want them?

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.

cleanbluesky · 13 Jan 2008 at 12:23

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?

MHayes · 13 Jan 2008 at 12:25

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...