Should organ donation be manditory?

[AndyFromMonday]

Finding something distasteful is a valid argument because I don't need to explain my personal opinions.

I won't care about my body if I'm dead, right? I care about my body when I'm dead because I am currently alive. And if I feel I don't like something in the future, I will not approve of it now.

I'm not looking out for social welfare, I am not out for the greater good. I find the idea of government having control over my body by default as repulsive, and I oppose all laws that aim to reach that effect.

No it's not. Whether or not you find something distasteful is not a good enough reason to deny someone their chance at living.

Yes it is. It's called subjectivity. I see the world through my own eyes, and by default, my perspective is superior to all others. You may disagree, but that's your perspective

So your perspective is superior to that of a physician when it comes to treatment options for a cancer patient?

Yes, my perspective is always superior. I perceive a physician to be qualified in some matters, and I perceive to follow his/her directions.


Not matter what happens, the individual perspective is always superior.

But you just admitted that the physicians perspective is superior.

That's your perspective, because I didn't.

But you literally just said you'd follow his perspective. Why else would you follow it if you didn't perceive it as superior?

No, I literally didn't. Your perspective is welcome, but is inferior.

How do you know that?

Sum, Ergo Cogito

Descartes dealt with reality, not perceived notions of what you can and what you should do. You haven't answered my question. How do you know your perspective is s uperior?

Just as I believed, you have no knowledge of epistemology. This is not Descartes' Cogito Ergo Sum (I think therefore I am). This is Nietzsche's version in his book The Gay Science.

It's futile to argue with someone who doesn't know that difference. Good day.

And it's also futile to argue with someone who uses philosophy to justify their own inhibitions.
You don't seem to actually take epistemology seriously but instead you use it as a way to claim superiority in an argument.

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

I was referring to your editing out of the insult so as to avoid mod wrath.

Selfish? Nah. I just value my family receiving money for my property.

Which one? So many posts I forget when I've typed what.

So you don't value someone else's family not having one of its members die an unecessary death... ok then Mr selfless...

 

[orangecharger]

I can't think of many religions that would say no, but I don't know much about any of them except my own.

However, are you saying that it should be mandatory after death or during life? Call me selfish, but during life I want to keep my organs intact.

and therein lies the rub. Who decides when you are now a helpless case and let's you die so they can save the kid down the hall who is waiting for exactly your liver. I would prefer my caregivers do all they can to save me, and not be concerned about my blood type, and treat me like I am a toy box to raid. We are all human as humans are we capable of making the decision to keep working on this critically injured (maybe not fatally) tatted up motorcyclist versus let him die and take his organs to save 3 or 4 people down the hall.

That's why it should be left up to the family to decide what happens to my organs -- not a piece of paper in my wallet or a doctor that feels like they are doing the "right" thing.

 

[Riff Moonraker]

Sorry, your "reasons" are your own. I find it inherently distasteful that a government will have control over my body by default.

Who are you to decide how I should fell about my body, dead or otherwise?

Oh, if You want to put it this way... sure. It's the same as believing You are a fairy. You are entitled to believe that, or feel about it one way or another. It's just most probably not true.

You cannot have control over something when You are dead, because in order to have control over something, You have to be alive. That's a tautology.

Finding something distasteful is not a very objective argument to base legislature on. Sure, it's still done, but that doesn't mean there won't be attempts to bust such arguments on a forum. Not wanting an opt-out system due to not liking the idea of not having control over Your body when You die, is like... not wanting it due to not liking the idea of the sky being blue. Okay, You don't like the idea, but it's kinda sorta true. You can attempt to control what happens after Your death, but You can never really control it.

So You, personally, can't control it for sure anyway, and You feel strongly enough about it to presumably fill out an opt-out-form should organ donorship become the default state as per legislature of Your country. So there's no logical reason to be against it.

~Sylv

Finding something distasteful is a valid argument because I don't need to explain my personal opinions.

I won't care about my body if I'm dead, right? I care about my body when I'm dead because I am currently alive. And if I feel I don't like something in the future, I will not approve of it now.

I'm not looking out for social welfare, I am not out for the greater good. I find the idea of government having control over my body by default as repulsive, and I oppose all laws that aim to reach that effect.

I agree. I feel the same way about how our current administration views the wealthy. If someone has worked hard to become a wealthy individual, there are alot of vocal people these days that believe that they should be taxed to death to provide for the poor. Thats bullshit. Just like its bullshit to try and FORCE me to donate my organs.

 

[Shio]

I was referring to your editing out of the insult so as to avoid mod wrath.

Selfish? Nah. I just value my family receiving money for my property.

Which one? So many posts I forget when I've typed what.

So you don't value someone else's family not having one of its members die an unecessary death... ok then Mr selfless...

I'm sure you have.

That is correct. Me > my family and friends > people I use for living (make my food, create the power that keeps my showers warm, etc., etc. > strangers.

 

[Coraxian]

This is already "mandatory" over here. In de opt-out kind of way.

Then again, if the family insists against it, even if the person never opted out, they won't use the organs. Or so I'm told.

Over here it's described as "presumed consent".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1296026/?page=1
Quite an extended article about it here.

 

[Shio]

I agree. I feel the same way about how our current administration views the wealthy. If someone has worked hard to become a wealthy individual, there are alot of vocal people these days that believe that they should be taxed to death to provide for the poor. Thats bullshit. Just like its bullshit to try and FORCE me to donate my organs.

Because communism is awesome, lol.

 

[FamoFunk]

But why should people have to opt-out if they never wanted to opt-in in the first place?

Because something this generalised can never hope to satisfy everyone.

At least they can actually get out of it if they want to, I'm not forcing anyone to do anything that they don't want to do.

Yes you are, you are forcing people to become a donor without their permission, which is wrong.
Yes you can opt-out, but why should you have to? If someone wants to donate, they will. If people are concerned that there's not enough donations, then campaining or educations should be done, not "Hay, I just signed you up to give up your kindneys without your say so.".

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

Did I say those things?

If not then don't put words into my mouth.

I never said you did, I was merely pointing out that your general statement about morality not being fixed is not always true.

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

But why should people have to opt-out if they never wanted to opt-in in the first place?

Because something this generalised can never hope to satisfy everyone.

At least they can actually get out of it if they want to, I'm not forcing anyone to do anything that they don't want to do.

Yes you are, you are forcing people to become a donor without their permission, which is wrong.
Yes you can opt-out, but why should you have to? If someone wants to donate, they will. If people are concerned that there's not enough donations, then campaining or educations should be done, not "Hay, I just signed you up to give up your kindneys without your say so.".

Ok, listen very carefully;

If I am giving them a way of getting out of it, I am not forcing them to do it.

I merely think that opt out is a much more efficient starting point than opt in from a
'getting as many useful organs as we can from dead people'
standpoint.

 

[Shio]

I stand firm in the notion that we have the right to do anything to ourselves. As long as we harm or hinder no one else in the process.

I agree with you, but I have a question.

I once attempted suicide by taking an entire month's worth of my antidepressants. I ended up in hospital for a while and then spent a month in a mental health hospital. It was a few years ago so I was under 18. My parents had to by law do a bunch of stuff and the suicide attempt cost them a lot of time and caused a ton of emotional stress.

Did I have the 'right' to do that, in your eyes? I mean, you say so long as we don't hinder or harm anyone else, we have the right to do anything too ourselves.

Just curious as to your thoughts. Not calling you out or anything.

 

[Flight]

Absolutely not. No one is entitled to someone else's body, including organs. If people want to donate, that's good. If they don't wish to, they shouldn't have to - and I'm speaking as someone who plans to donate my organs when I die.

 

[Shio]

Ok, listen very carefully;

You are forcing people to be a donor. You are giving them a way out of it, yes. So? How about I decide I want your brain. You can opt out if you want, but if you don't, I'm coming over in a week to take your brain. I'm not forcing you to give it to me - just opt out!

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

Ok, listen very carefully;

You are forcing people to be a donor. You are giving them a way out of it, yes. So? How about I decide I want your brain. You can opt out if you want, but if you don't, I'm coming over in a week to take your brain. I'm not forcing you to give it to me - just opt out!

Totally seperate issue.

Am I ok with being murdered for my organs? no.
Am I ok with my organs being used once I'm dead? yes.

Last time I will say this:

FORCING implies that they have no choice.
OPT OUT is a choice not to do something.

If I am giving them a chance to opt out, I cannot be forcing them.

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

Did I say those things?

If not then don't put words into my mouth.

I never said you did, I was merely pointing out that your general statement about morality not being fixed is not always true.

It's entirely true.

And the things you pointed out have provably happened.

There have already been cultures that not only accepted rape and murder as part of everyday life, they were also thought of as an essential part of being a man.

Genghis Khan raped thousands of women, he was also responsible for the deaths of countless more men. His people treated that as part of what made him great.

Morality is far from fixed my friend. Who knows what the future is going to hold on that front.

Fair enough. Didn't think about the past examples tbh.

 

[One of Many]

I am not a collection of spare parts for some Gman to order cut up when I move on.

There my organs and I'll keep them thank you very much. I couldn't care about those it might save or about humanity in general. And no, it doesn't bother me if that seems selfish. Those are a few of my failings.

 

[Shio]

If I am giving them a chance to opt out, I cannot be forcing them.

You are forcing them to be donors. You are giving them the option to opt out, but you are forcing them to have to (the people who would otherwise never be a donor).

Luckily the law is on my side and such a situation will never occur. My organs will either rot with me or get sold off to the highest bidder. And I like that.

 

[fenrizz]

It should be mandatory, no opt out.

What you gonna do with your organs after you are dead?

 

[Shio]

I stand firm in the notion that we have the right to do anything to ourselves. As long as we harm or hinder no one else in the process.

I agree with you, but I have a question.

I once attempted suicide by taking an entire month's worth of my antidepressants. I ended up in hospital for a while and then spent a month in a mental health hospital. It was a few years ago so I was under 18. My parents had to by law do a bunch of stuff and the suicide attempt cost them a lot of time and caused a ton of emotional stress.

Did I have the 'right' to do that, in your eyes? I mean, you say so long as we don't hinder or harm anyone else, we have the right to do anything too ourselves.

Just curious as to your thoughts. Not calling you out or anything.

You know, as I was writing those words. That precise (more or less) scenario popped into my head.

To be honest with you, I don't know. In the end, it's your life. The final say of what happens to it should come down to you. But I do think taking responsibility for it (after the fact) is your responsibility.

Don't mean to sound like a prick or anything there.

I would say it is your right. So long as you take full responsibility for your actions.

Fair enough. Thanks for the answer.

 

[^=ash=^]

It would makes sense.

One could set up harvesting facilities, almost like a factory I guess. Take what can be used, leaving the husk intact and leave in what is of no use then bury people vertically to save space.

xxx