Except there is no consent process in the example provided. There was no option to opt out (withdraw consent) of a very specific set of circumstances previously. The two examples are not comparable. Consent can be given in a number of ways and there remains an active choice with organ donation.
We're all organ doners now...
- Thread starter MrWhippy
- Start date
Except there is no consent process in the example provided. There was no option to opt out (withdraw consent) of a very specific set of circumstances previously. The two examples are not comparable. Consent can be given in a number of ways and there remains an active choice with organ donation.
I don’t think anyone that would opt out of being a donor would be against doing it for their own child, family member or friends, although I could be wrong. Obviously there are exceptions with examples like Jehovah Witnesses
People choose to ethically deprive someone else the right to live all the time, how many don’t donate money to people/countries in dire need of food or water or wants to resist genuine asylum seekers fleeing serious danger? The difference being giving something useful to them like money isn’t considered because they don’t care enough but people want to get all high and mighty about saving lives when they are discussing their cast offs. I personally think it’s far more noble giving something of worth when you are alive than think you are some life saver when you are dead.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,757
- Location
- Welling, London
Sorry, but I think you are being insulting to the many thousands of donors and their families over the years who have saved countless lives with their generosity in such traumatic times for them.
Im not insulting the donors that choose to give. I’m stating the hypocrisy of virtue signallers who quite happily choose to ignore death and suffering of some people but seem to think they are some sort of life giver by passing off their no longer needed body parts when in reality, the chances their body parts ever being used is next to nil.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,398
- Location
- ST4
If you don't want your organs to be used after your death then it's simple, just make sure to die in such a way to make it unfeasible. Jump into a wood chipper or something.
Also, is the thread title bothering anyone else? I know some places are a bit dodgy, but c'mon.
Also, is the thread title bothering anyone else? I know some places are a bit dodgy, but c'mon.
So become an altruistic living kidney donor and be the catalyst which can start a chain of unrelated matched pair living donors.
I'm comparing opt-out to opt-out and how (a) it's very different to opt-in and (b) it is not consent. You seized on whatever you could to avoid trying to make a counter-argument. Presumably because you don't have one and must resort to claiming lack of consent is consent. That won't become true regardless of how many times you proclaim it. Your argument is based solely on an untrue statement and a dubious appeal to emotion. Your argument is a bad one.
But if you truly believed that lack of consent is consent then you should have no problem with the scenario I mentioned. The principle is the same - a lack of actively stating opposition is treated as if it was consent. Which it isn't.
I deliberately picked a situation in which consent is generally considered important because this issue is about consent. Using a situation in which consent is generally considered important illustrates the importance of consent and why treating consent as unimportant is a bad idea.
While it could be argued that, like you, I was using an appeal to emotion at the same time I was, unlike you, making a true statement about the nature of consent. Also unlike you, I'm not in favour of treating lack of consent as consent.
I am equating lack of consent with lack of consent. It's not confusing. It only becomes confusing to people who are seeking to concoct some special hand-waving pretend argument as to why consent does and doesn't matter depending solely on whether or not they want it to matter and then realise the only excuse they can come up with is lying about what consent is.
As for the difference between a crime and an agreed change in the system (which was not democratic, but that's a minor point in comparison) that difference is solely what the authorities decree at any particular time and has no logical or ethical meaning. In the past, for example, it was a crime for two men to have consensual sex with each other. Did that make it a bad thing that suddenly stopped being a bad thing solely because a government agreed to a change in the system?
Disappointing that it took until page 8 for someone else to notice. Well played sir.
I find this pretty bad of a government to steal body parts.
And would be impossible in the UK since increases the number of compatible donor hearts from 200 to 513 would require the number of registered donors to increase to 2.565 what it is now. Since most people in the UK were already registered donors and most of those who weren't either couldn't or wouldn't be donors, if there is any increase at all it will be very small and cannot possibly be anything close to 2.565 times unless we also hugely increase the population of the UK. Which still wouldn't work because that would also increase the number of heart transplants required.
That research didn't even attempt to account for any relevant factors such as opt-in rates prior to removing the need for consent and how well organised and funded each country's transplant system is. It's not useful research.
I think you can fairly compare the same process and way of thinking. The two scenarios are different, but the process and way of thinking is the same - anything other than active resistance is consent.
I don't consent to the idea that anything other than active resistance is consent. That's a horrible idea.
You do have a choice...
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 5,774
- Location
- Location, Location!
You have a choice.... who is forcing you to donate? No-one. Don't be so silly.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 5,774
- Location
- Location, Location!
Anyone opting out of this is should be looked down upon. Real bottom of the barrel dregs of society.
People do have a choice.
The comment about state ownership of a human is stupid or thoughtless, as it is akin to slavery.
No, I think the people in the population that are obviously into organ donation but couldn’t spend the couple of minutes of their pathetic lives to register are the ones that should be looked down upon. Those useless lazy sacks of **** are no doubt ones that are most evangelical about how this is a great idea when it’s precisely their inaction was the cause of the change of law in the first place.