We're all organ doners now...

haaammit said:
The argument that you would be more likely to be "left to die" so your organs can be harvested is null, surely, because with the opt out system there will be a lot more organs to go around?
Click to expand...

No, for a couple of reasons:

1) Removing the need for consent will not result in "a lot more organs to go round". It might result in a small increase. It might have no effect. It might result in a small decrease due to people objecting to the removal of the need for consent (which is presumably why it's been done on the quiet).

2) There are many ways in which an organ must be compatible with the recipient, so even if there were a lot more organs to go around (which there won't be) that still wouldn't remove the possibility of people deciding that the course of least harm is to declare a probably unsaveable patient dead in order to use their parts to save another, far more saveable, patient.


It's common for the extreme case to be described, in which a saveable patient is declared dead so that their organs can be used for someone who has enough money/power or who is more personally important to the surgeon, but it would usually be far more nuanced than that, far less clear in an ethical sense. Good medical ethics is based on the idea of doing net good and as little harm as possible. It's obviously not as simple as "do no harm" because that would rule out all surgery and most drugs. The point is net good and as little harm as possible.

So imagine this scenario:

Patient 1 will definitely suffer and die without a transplant and will very likely live well enough for decades after a transplant.
Patient 2 is greviously injured (shot, car crash, whatever), is almost certainly unsaveable and in the unlikely event that they could be saved they would have at best a short life of pain and suffering. But the organ that patient 1 needs is undamaged in patient 2 and is compatible with patient 1 and it would be possible to get the transplant done quickly enough. There's a team who could do it in the hospital right now, there's a suitable operating facility available right now and patient 1 can get to the hospital in 30 mins.

What is the course of net good and as little harm as possible?
 
robfosters said:
I’m not ashamed of myself thank you for believing the opt out system is the right way to do it.

If you truly believe that then over half the country should be ashamed of themselves, because a huge majority favour it, but of course they’re wrong and you’re right*

*In your own mind
Click to expand...

In some times and places a majority of people favoured homosexuality being illegal. In some places that's still true.
In some times and places a majority of people favoured slavery being legal.
A majority of people favoured the extreme pro-white racism of the USA a hundred years ago.

The majority is not always right, especially when they are lied to, misled and coerced into expressing conformity.

Yes, I do think that the idea that anything other than active resistance is consent is ethically wrong. I do think that anyone who thinks that anything other than active resistance is consent is wrong. I don't care how many people think that anything other than active resistance is consent. I don't care how many people think that homosexual people should be jailed or executed. I don't care how many people think slavery is a good thing. I don't care how many people think that there are reds under the bed and anyone accused of un-American activities should be presumed guilty and punished. Etc, etc, etc.

I do think that people who think that anything other than active resistance is consent should be ashamed of themselves. No matter how many people think that way.
 
Angilion said:
In some times and places a majority of people favoured homosexuality being illegal. In some places that's still true.
In some times and places a majority of people favoured slavery being legal.
A majority of people favoured the extreme pro-white racism of the USA a hundred years ago.

The majority is not always right, especially when they are lied to, misled and coerced into expressing conformity.

Yes, I do think that the idea that anything other than active resistance is consent is ethically wrong. I do think that anyone who thinks that anything other than active resistance is consent is wrong. I don't care how many people think that anything other than active resistance is consent. I don't care how many people think that homosexual people should be jailed or executed. I don't care how many people think slavery is a good thing. I don't care how many people think that there are reds under the bed and anyone accused of un-American activities should be presumed guilty and punished. Etc, etc, etc.

I do think that people who think that anything other than active resistance is consent should be ashamed of themselves. No matter how many people think that way.
Click to expand...
The problem with active consent is that too many people are happy to donate, but never get round to registering. That means hundreds or thousands of organs going to waste every year that the deceased would have been happy to donate, and therefore, many lives will be needlessly lost.

there’s nothing wrong with presumed consent as long as you have the option to opt out which you do, and you need to stop using ridiculous historical examples such as homosexuality law and slavery to compare. They couldn’t be more different. Those laws promoted oppression, this law promotes saving lives.
 
Angilion said:
In some times and places a majority of people favoured homosexuality being illegal. In some places that's still true.
In some times and places a majority of people favoured slavery being legal.
A majority of people favoured the extreme pro-white racism of the USA a hundred years ago.
Click to expand...
Every example here is something that was wrong with society being changed to something that is fair and just.

Opt-out follows suit.
 
Angilion said:
That would be a very good idea. At least to people who think that informed consent matters.

Until the need for consent was removed, the UK's system was to encourage consent and to make it extremely easy to consent. Which is why most potential donors were already registered by choice and most of the remaining either can't be donors or wouldn't choose to register for organ donation for philosophical or religious reasons. The only way to make any significant increase in the number of potential donors in the UK is to force everyone to be a donor.



Which is probably the point. The government isn't entirely ignorant, so they will know that changing the system to declare that everything other than active resistance is consent will have little or no effect on transplant numbers in the UK. Since they know full well that the change can't serve the publically stated purpose, there must be another purpose for the change. It's purpose is either to gain votes or to be a step towards further changes based on the principle that anything other than active resistance is consent and that the state owns your body. Or both. We'll see which direction they're heading by seeing what spin is put on what happens next. It's likely that improvements in knowledge and technology and infrastructure will continue to bring slight increases to the number of transplants done. If the purpose of removing the need for consent was purely to gain votes, any such increase will be spun as a result of the removal of the need for consent. If the purpose is to build on the precedent set by the removal of the need for consent, any such increase will be attributed to improvements in knowledge, technology and infrastructure and further changes building on the precedent set by the removal of the need for consent will be proposed and promoted as a good thing using the tried and tested tool of manipulation - spin it as something necessary to save lives, especially children's lives. Think of the children! Vote Prop 13 or you hate children! Do that for a bit and it becomes self-sustaining as people either genuinely believe it or express it especially fervently anyway as virtue signalling so they are not targetted themselves. It won't be long before anyone who claims consent matters will be denounced as an evil person who causes people's deaths and should be refused medical treatment. As has happened in this thread.



It has, but probably wouldn't happen here in the near future.



It's also an inherently better solution to grow replacement organs from the patient's own body. There's a persistant portrayal of transplants as a one-time thing that's a permanent fix without any problems. A little while to recover from the operation and that's it, job done, permanent fix and nothing else required. That's not true. They'll be on anti-rejection drugs for life and that's a problem because the whole point of anti-rejection drugs is to adversely affect the immune system. That's what they're for - to try to stop the person's immune system attacking the transplanted tissue.

But transplants from other people are required at the moment and would probably still have a useful purpose if it became possible to grow spare parts from a person's own cells. I'm strongly in favour of transplants. That's why I became a registered organ donor as soon as I could, many years ago. But I'm also strongly opposed to the idea that anything other than active resistance is consent. That's a horrible idea and all the people proudly proclaiming it's a great idea should be ashamed of themselves.
Click to expand...

Transplantation causes a host of other negative issues which brings other deseases with it.

The financial costs for transplants is huge, the after care costs are huge. So much money goes into this field to keep the person alive, the continued treatment for the rest of their lives which causes other problems. The cost of drugs is huge, and the candidates for transplants are restrictive.
If the government developed stem cell research Centers they would over night create an industry that could be exported.

The ability to develop organs from stem cells would open doors for candidates that were unable to have transplants because of other issues.

Growing organs would cost a tenth compared to the Financial cost transplant plus the emotional cost from finding a match etc...

I would love for the NHS to use 20% of their budget for organ regeneration.


https://www.livescience.com/amp/63596-organ-donation-transmitted-breast-cancer.html
 
Last edited:
D3K said:
Every example here is something that was wrong with society being changed to something that is fair and just.

Opt-out follows suit.
Click to expand...

People who supported those other things called them fair and just. Because they were like you.
 
robfosters said:
The problem with active consent is that too many people are happy to donate, but never get round to registering. That means hundreds or thousands of organs going to waste every year that the deceased would have been happy to donate, and therefore, many lives will be needlessly lost.
Click to expand...

Provide evidence for your claims in the UK, paying particular attention as to why you think the head of the medical body organising transplants in the UK disagrees with you.

Even if your claim was right (which it isn't) it would still have nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong to treat anything other than active resistance as being consent. The issue (if it even exists) could be far more ethically resolved by having everyone register their choice. Here's a form with two boxes, mark your choice.

There is no reason for changing the rules to be that anything other than active resistance is consent other than establishing that precedent. The excuses that supporters of the change are using are false and obviously so.

there’s nothing wrong with presumed consent as long as you have the option to opt out which you do, and you need to stop using ridiculous historical examples such as homosexuality law and slavery to compare. They couldn’t be more different. Those laws promoted oppression, this law promotes saving lives.
Click to expand...

You think that anything other than active resistance is consent. You are grasping at any reason to dismiss any opposing opinion as ridiculous because you can't make a counter-argument. You can't even be honest about what I've written (I gave those laws as examples of a majority being wrong, not as examples of why it's wrong to claim that anything other than active resistance is consent). Which isn't surprising from someone so unethical that they are proud to think that anything other than active resistance is consent.

I'd have more respect for the people arguing that consent doesn't matter if they were honest and advocated that everyone be forced to be an organ donor. That position at least has the ethical value of being honest.
 
I’m not going to carry on arguing semantics with you all night. The footballs on and I need my dinner. we both have our viewpoints, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

im just very glad it’s been introduced. It could end up saving lives, and most important of all, very possibly my own.

I should be speaking to my transplant coordinator next week. I’ll ask what she thinks and what differences she believes it will make.
 
Angilion said:
People who supported those other things called them fair and just. Because they were like you.
Click to expand...
You just called me a homophobic, white supremacist slaver.

Or will you turn round and say some banal garbage about how you were equating perceptions of different eras. Please don't. you have absolutely no clue about what people's perceptions really were back then.
 
D3K said:
You just called me a homophobic, white supremacist slaver.

Or will you turn round and say some banal garbage about how you were equating perceptions of different eras. Please don't. you have absolutely no clue about what people's perceptions really were back then.
Click to expand...
Angilion does have a knack of writing walls of repetitive word salads in a bid to look intelligent.

They fail many times.
 
robfosters said:
I’m not ashamed of myself thank you for believing the opt out system is the right way to do it.

If you truly believe that then over half the country should be ashamed of themselves, because a huge majority favour it, but of course they’re wrong and you’re right*
Click to expand...

Absolutely, the vast majority of the country should be ashamed of themselves because ultimately they are all full of ****. You stated 80% of the country support organ donation but only 37% were registered. That means all those people didn’t have the conviction of their own beliefs to spend the couple of minutes to register. They would talk about saving lives but those lives weren’t worth a couple minutes of their lives. Only when they didn’t have to do anything, they were happy to donate, what an amazingly lazy bunch of ***** made even worse that they have the cheek to shame others for not being a donor
 
Bear said:
Absolutely, the vast majority of the country should be ashamed of themselves because ultimately they are all full of ****. You stated 80% of the country support organ donation but only 37% were registered. That means all those people didn’t have the conviction of their own beliefs to spend the couple of minutes to register. They would talk about saving lives but those lives weren’t worth a couple minutes of their lives. Only when they didn’t have to do anything, they were happy to donate, what an amazingly lazy bunch of ***** made even worse that they have the cheek to shame others for not being a donor
Click to expand...
Your point proves nothing except human apathy when it involves time and effort from them. More than 37% need to opt-out for your issue with the system to be relevant.
 
D3K said:
Your point proves nothing except human apathy when it involves time and effort from them. More than 37% need to opt-out for your issue with the system to be relevant.
Click to expand...

That was exactly my point, human apathy. They talk the talk but the lives wasn’t worth the few minutes of their time, that’s how pathetic they are, only now they can feel pleased with themselves as they are now life savers but only because they didn’t have to do anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom