Organ donor system "presumed consent"

[Mr Jack]

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.

Someone is deciding the fate of your remains anyway, why not have the default assumption being the one that most benefits society?

 

[cleanbluesky]

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.

You put over a very reason argument, and I agree that the potential choice could be absolutely minimal. However, I believe that the assumption that we hold an attitude (particularly on what we would like done to us or our posessions) would be a fearful barrier for the government.

Regardlesss of how simple it is, it should always be opt in.

 

[semi-pro waster]

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.

You are a bit late in objecting really to people having a say in what happens after your death, not your fault since you weren't alive when the policies were formed but suicides can't/won't be buried by many churches in holy ground since it is a mortal sin. The Government takes a portion of your estate (over set limits) on death. In a case of suspicious death an autopsy will be performed on the body. All examples where you have no say in what happens after death because other people or organisations have decreed what will or will not happen.

//edit, just noticed your last post, I do accept that it is a step in control that isn't ideal but in this case I do think the benefit to society will outweigh the loss of individual choice (given you aren't actually losing the choice per se but merely having the presumption reversed).

 

[cleanbluesky]

You are a bit late in objecting really to people having a say in what happens after your death, not your fault since you weren't alive when the policies were formed but suicides can't/won't be buried by many churches in holy ground since it is a mortal sin. The Government takes a portion of your estate (over set limits) on death. In a case of suspicious death an autopsy will be performed on the body. All examples where you have no say in what happens after death because other people or organisations have decreed what will or will not happen.

All of which are based on the concept of NEED rather than consent. Being buried in a churchyard relies on a person to subscribe to a certain religion in order to WANT to be there, it is not automatic. The government's taxation isn't about choice. Autopsy isn't about choice, and it is only performed when there is a need.

The difference is that the government are deciding are forcing a choice upon you, and placing conditions of how you can express your decision.

//edit, just noticed your last post, I do accept that it is a step in control that isn't ideal but in this case I do think the benefit to society will outweigh the loss of individual choice (given you aren't actually losing the choice per se but merely having the presumption reversed).

There are other methods. There are also significant problems in the logistics of know who has and hasn't opted out - particularly in emergency situations.

 

[PurpleDinosaur]

I'm also of the opinion that those who opt out should not be permitted transplants of their own. Unless they have to opt out for reasons out of their control that is.

 

[MHayes]

How about a system where you sell you organs, that would be good. Organbay.com or something. Although you aint going to be able to haggle when your dead, you might get ripped off would need a way of setting price beforehand.

 

[cleanbluesky]

I'm also of the opinion that those who opt out should not be permitted transplants of their own. Unless they have to opt out for reasons out of their control that is.

I believe that transplants should be performed on clinical need rather than than on the basis of moral judgement of the person.

I think a lot of people want to be seen on the Right Side - hence why many are willing to openly support organ donation here, although I'm betting that they don't have cards themselves, which is why so many may assume that others "cant be arsed". If people are so in favour of organ donation, there is nothing stopping them going out and getting cards, its less effort than a credit card application. I wonder how many people here have credit cards, believe in organ donation but don't have organ donation cards.

 

[Glaucus]

I think it's a great idea, if you don't like it simply opt out, it won't be hard. goto the website and plug in your details.

They should at least remove relatives rights to refuse donation, if you have a donors card. I think that's absolutely wrong. You signed up to be a donor. But your family can still over ride it. Madness.

 

[Posty]

i disagree, people should be allowed to die as over population is the cause of most of the problems in the world.

 

[semi-pro waster]

All of which are based on the concept of NEED rather than consent. Being buried in a churchyard relies on a person to subscribe to a certain religion in order to WANT to be there, it is not automatic. The government's taxation isn't about choice. Autopsy isn't about choice, and it is only performed when there is a need.

The difference is that the government are deciding are forcing a choice upon you, and placing conditions of how you can express your decision.

It is slightly debateable in the need/consent argument, certainly for burial - you have expressed a wish to be buried in place X and someone else says yes or no.

There are other methods. There are also significant problems in the logistics of know who has and hasn't opted out - particularly in emergency situations.

So you could have a "non organ donor" card, much the same as the current organ donor card but in the negative. I've put my name down on the register twice now I think and haven't received a card, I am willing to be a donor but with an automatic presumption I wouldn't even need the card. If the statistics given are correct something like 60% of the population are currently registered to be organ donors which suggests to me that it would be less hassle checking names against those who have opted out against those who have opted in under the current system.

 

[Glaucus]

i disagree, people should be allowed to die as over population is the cause of most of the problems in the world.

it really isn't though.
A lot of countrys have a problem with under population. Making it stupidly expensive and hard to implement any type of decent infrastructure, to support a western style lifestyle, out side of any major city.

 

[Deluxe1]

I'm also of the opinion that those who opt out should not be permitted transplants of their own. Unless they have to opt out for reasons out of their control that is.

Was just going to say this myself,i have no problems with any part of me going to help someone after i die but i`d rather it be to someone else who also will be sharing his/her organs after death.

Those who opt out should have no access to the organ doners list if they ever need a transplant.

 

[MHayes]

it really isn't though.
A lot of countrys have a problem with under population. Making it stupidly expensive and hard to implement any type of decent infrastructure, to support a western style lifestyle, out side of any major city.

I really don't want to live like the Japanese. France is more like it.

It is a stuppid argument, overpopulation obviously shouldn't come into it, you could apply it for any illness, why discriminate?

Anyay we should be able to grow them soon.

 

[PurpleDinosaur]

i disagree, people should be allowed to die as over population is the cause of most of the problems in the world.

Would you still believe that if you were in an accident tomorrow and a transplant would save you?

 

[PurpleDinosaur]

although I'm betting that they don't have cards themselves, which is why so many may assume that others "cant be arsed".

My assumptions are based on the number of people I've spoken to who haven't got a card, and the reason they gave was they "never get round to it." No-one I asked (friends and family) had a problem with organ donation, yet only two of them (excluding me) had added themselves to the donor list. That's out of about 15 people I can think of.

 

[iBot]

I'll opt out thanks.

 

[PurpleDinosaur]

I'll opt out thanks.

I thought you were emigrating to Spain after going to jail for impregnating a 12 year old? As well as being a 20 year old with a son old enough to buy 2 graphics cards himself.

Or was that one of the other users of your account?

 

[Mr.Clark]

I believe that if the relatives object as well organs won't be used.

Can you have a note put in your file "donate regardless of what the relatives say"

While I trust my parents to donate if I have an accident, I'd hate to think that someone currently goes to the trouble of opting in then some selfish relative goes against their wishes because they are against organ donation...

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?

Any and all of me can go for any scientific research people want. I'll be dead. I won't care.

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?

It will be a doctor who takes out your organs and puts them into someone who may die without them, not a black ops team nicking your plasma TV that you've left to your kids... what would your next of kin want with your kidneys anyway?

 

[PurpleDinosaur]

Can you have a note put in your file "donate regardless of what the relatives say"

While I trust my parents to donate if I have an accident, I'd hate to think that someone currently goes to the trouble of opting in then some selfish relative goes against their wishes because they are against organ donation...

No, I think your immediate family have the final say in the decision, which is why you're strongly advised to sit down with them and explain that you're an organ donor and why.

 

[Glaucus]

Can you have a note put in your file "donate regardless of what the relatives say"

Nope



This isn't for scientific research, or skulls as ashtrays or anything else. It is purely organ donation.