Should organ donation be manditory?

[FamoFunk]

No. I don't want to live somewhere where I have to opt-out of things rather than have the free will and choice to opt-in.

Also, I'm an organ doner, by choice, by opting in myself. Not by being forced and then having to opt-out

But with an opt out system, people still have choice. They have the choice to... opt out.

The only thing that switching from opt in to opt out will mean is that the people who don't care about the issue will donate their organs automatically rather than not, meaning that we get more donations overall.

If you are so against it you can just op out, that's the point.

Absoloutely nobody's free will is being breached at all.

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

I'm all for more people being organ donars, I am one myself, but I think educating and more information/advertising to get people to opt-in is a much better option.

 

[LCP]

As long as it's a charity auction

 

[blind_dead_mcjones]

no, nor should it be opt out either for several reasons

1: it infringes on individual rights, personal choice and is unethical
2: there are far too many people on the planet at any rate (7 billion and rising)
3: why should someone who's specific organs are shutting down be more deserving of a second chance than anyone else who is terminally ill? and why should that be through taking someone elses organs?
4: the double standard/hypocrisy involved, as its essentially state sponsored and enforced grave robbing/organ trafficking
5: even if i am dead it's still my body and i want it to be treated with dignity, taking another persons property without their permission (regardless of whether they're living or deceased) is a crime, theft to be precise, and if we don't own our body what do we own?
6: makes no allowance for peoples religious or philosophical beliefs regarding maintaining the integrity of the body
7: is just plain arbitrary
8: it is never wise to make assumptions on someones part in regards to their final wishes that they may have not communicated prior to their demise, benefit of the doubt is key

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

No. I don't want to live somewhere where I have to opt-out of things rather than have the free will and choice to opt-in.

Also, I'm an organ doner, by choice, by opting in myself. Not by being forced and then having to opt-out

What Famo says. While you have no claim to your organs after your death, neither does the Government.

If it's opt-out, rather than opt-in - what about those that can't opt-out?

Spoiler: Crass statement espousing opt-out

Perfectly nice healthy heart in that still-born.

 

[Vault101]

no, nor should it be opt out either for several reasons

1: it infringes on individual rights, personal choice and is unethical
2: there are far too many people on the planet at any rate (7 billion and rising)[/B]
3: why should someone who's specific organs are shutting down be more deserving of a second chance than anyone else who is terminally ill? and why should that be through taking someone elses organs?
4: the double standard/hypocrisy involved, as its essentially state sponsored and enforced grave robbing/organ trafficking
5: even if i am dead it's still my body and i want it to be treated with dignity, taking another persons property without their permission (regardless of whether they're living or deceased) is a crime, theft to be precise, and if we don't own our body what do we own?
6: makes no allowance for peoples religious or philosophical beliefs regarding maintaining the integrity of the body
7: is just plain arbitrary
8: it is never wise to make assumptions on someones part in regards to their final wishes that they may have not communicated prior to their demise, benefit of the doubt is key

Id be interested to see if you still had that attitude if you or somone close to you is slowly dying and waiting for a heart/kidney

also I think if you care so much about what hapens to your body after you die THEN you should make it very clear

otherwise...taking religion out of the equasion, your dead why do you care?

 

[Trasken]

That is IMO some kind of Socialist idea, next thing everyone will be paid the same salary so no one is poor, and no one will be able to own a piece of technology unless everyone else can have it.
I personally dont want to be forced to donate unless i go through all the paperwork to say i don't want to be forced to donate.
The system we have now is perfectly fine, you're and altruist who wants to give his organs to someone after he dies? good for you go fill up the paperwork but don't force me to do it just because it's the "right" thing to do, remember the "right" thing isn't always the best thing

 

[Shio]

No. My body, my organs. When I'm dead, my will has first rights to decide what happens to my body, followed by my family.

I don't care if someone needs them. That's not my problem.

 

[fer-]

interesting, if the option to give is taken away...it is no longer really a 'donation' but a tax

I don't donate my money to the government, it is taxed.

I donate to a charity but I don't tax to a charity.

I rather prefer the liberty to donate to a charity then having something forcibly taken from me, alive or dead.

 

[Ramin 123]

Organs I'm not as sure about but when it comes to blood donation, it should be mandatory. I mean all that excuses I have heard are pathetic. I can't give blood because I'm Diabetic, yeah apparently I'm on the same category as someone with AIDS or something . It really annoys me that so many people are afraid of a needle :|

 

[Handbag1992]

Spoiler: Always reminds me of this....

Anyway, I don't think it should be mandatory, as some people just aren't comfortable with it - which is fair enough I guess. I for one don't want to donate my eyes. Don't ask why; I just find it...weird. Everything else fine, but not my eyes.

Quite the opposite for me, I was born with perfect eyes and my little brother has eyes so bad he cannot legally drive, so I've always made it clear that in the event of my untimely demise, my little bro gets offered my eyes. Although I can still appreciate the weirdness factor.

 

[blind_dead_mcjones]

No. I don't want to live somewhere where I have to opt-out of things rather than have the free will and choice to opt-in.

Also, I'm an organ doner, by choice, by opting in myself. Not by being forced and then having to opt-out

But with an opt out system, people still have choice. They have the choice to... opt out.

The only thing that switching from opt in to opt out will mean is that the people who don't care about the issue will donate their organs automatically rather than not, meaning that we get more donations overall.

If you are so against it you can just op out, that's the point.

Absoloutely nobody's free will is being breached at all.

thats not choice, thats being presumptuous

to assume the authority to make decisions for another in the absence of them opting in is the ultimate in arrogance

Id be interested to see if you still had that attitude if you or somone close to you is slowly dying and waiting for a heart/kidney

i'll cross that bridge when i get to it

also I think if you care so much about what hapens to your body after you die THEN you should make it very clear

do you then believe that anything i own is up for grabs unless i say otherwise?

otherwise...taking religion out of the equasion, your dead why do you care?

because i still have a sense of self respect and don't consider myself a collection of spare parts

 

[Embz]

The welsh assembly government is trying to pass a bill where organ donation will be opt out instead of opt in. I think its a great idea, there are never enough organs to go around and it will save a lot more lives.

 

[matt87_50]

when (if) society weeds out all the idiots (mainly the religious types) then yes.

 

[Griffolion]

I think it should be something taken as standard unless otherwise specified by someone's requests or beliefs. I know it sounds draconian, but that dead person's liver or whatever could save a life somewhere else, is that not justification enough?

when (if) society weeds out all the idiots (mainly the religious types) then yes.

That's a really horrible thing to say, how can you categorise an entire (and very broad) category of fellow human beings in such a derogatory manner based on, what I assume, is bad experiences with a tiny fraction of people in said category?

 

[surg3n]

The problem I have with it, is that 10x more organs means 10x more strain on the health system. It's not like we'd all suddenly have an embarrasment of organs going spare for people to actually recieve, because nothing much will change - private health organisations would just have more choice, we'd all still be waition months on the simplest operation.

In the UK, the appreciation level for you giving blood is a weak cup of tea and a stale biscuit - then when there's extra blood, it gets sold to..... private health organisations. So the government profit from people giving blood, and those people giving blood are expected to see it as doing a good deed.

IMO people should be encouraged to give blood and carry donor cards, financially if need be - maybe insurance companies should give discounts to people with donor cards, that sort of thing. Or discounted gym membership for donor's. Sorry to say, the whole 'good deed' thing isn't cutting it - good deeds need to be appreciated, it's human nature.

 

[blind_dead_mcjones]

I think it should be something taken as standard unless otherwise specified by someone's requests or beliefs. I know it sounds draconian, but that dead person's liver or whatever could save a life somewhere else, is that not justification enough?

its not, the end does not justify the means

 

[kebab4you]

Yes, as long as none of it goes to druggies/alcoholics(before rehab).

 

[not_you]

I don't have any religious views or beliefs behind it my opinion or whatever...

But I don't think it should be mandatory...
I mean, sure, you get to save some people's lives, but what difference would it make to you in the first place... If anything, it'd be another thought on the minds of your family thinking "Oh they now get to cut open my son/daughter/aunty/uncle/father/mother just to see if anything still works in there..."

I know I sound selfish and such, but, hey, that's just how I feel...
And why I choose to not be... Besides, in real life, people generally think of me as a prick... So, take that society

 

[Griffolion]

I think it should be something taken as standard unless otherwise specified by someone's requests or beliefs. I know it sounds draconian, but that dead person's liver or whatever could save a life somewhere else, is that not justification enough?

its not, the end does not justify the means

When it comes to matters of life I personally believe it does. If someone actively states that their beliefs or preferences mean they wish to keep their organs, that is 100% possible without ramification too. But as others have said, many individuals who don't care either way will be able to save lives who otherwise wouldn't be able to.

 

[INeedAName]

No, I don't think it should be mandatory. Though I can't find any particularily strong reason against donating your organs after death, the individual has the final say when it comes to their own body (even after death).