Should organ donation be manditory?

[Pearwood]

Yes. There's no reason not to other than medical problems which would be the exception. If you have religious or personal beliefs that this is wrong then I'd still say too bad for the same reason I'd not excuse murder that was motivated by religion. People die waiting for organ transplants, refusing to donate your organs could very well kill someone.

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

It can either decay in the ground, be burnt or save lives, which of those options is preferable? Either way it's destroyed in some way, choosing to have it destroyed in a wasteful way rather than a useful way just means your last act on earth could be being responsible for the death of another.

 

[Amphoteric]

It shouldn't be mandatory but it should be expected.

 

[Gigano]

No fucking way. f y'all think that then donating money to the poor should be mandatory. A kidney takes 10 years from your life, and makes it harder for you to piss, and limits the amount of times you can get drunk.

I think the discussion is on post-mortem organ donation, i.e. generally organs taken from people who've suffered irreversible braindeath.

 

[mooncalf]

I recall a TED talk titled "Are we in control of our decisions?" at one point discusses the prevalence of organ donation in Europe and it seems a clever approach to this question.
I am absolutely AGAINST mandatory donation, but I am completely happy for people to be tricked into useful action.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9X68dm92HVI

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

...
And for orphans? The mentally/phsyically incapable? Those unable to make themselves understood? Certain religions (Jehovah's Witnesses, certain Islamic sects)?

Whoever happen to be their legal guardian. Far more intensive decision than what happen to them after they're dead are left to those.

It's far easier, safer and less traumatic for someone unable to speak to opt in through selfishness than opt-out through terror.

"Oh I'm sorry sir, we don't seem to have a record of your opting out. Cut him open Bob."

Seriously, didn't the Live Organ Transplant sketch register as what could happen?

Or we could reverse the situation, and an accept of being an organ donor wasn't computed, and a virgin mother of eight dies in horrendous pain because the organs she needed wasn't available.

Problem with that. My sufferer is singular, your saviour could be anyone.
Also, are you saying that a virgin mother of eight
1) Is more important
2) Can be saved pain from the transplant
3) Can be saved from death purely through one transplant
4) Isn't incredibly likely to die on the operating table anyway? There's no way she could take an anesthetic in that condition.

You're bordering on Ad Hominem/Ad Absurdum there. Be careful.

No system is ever perfect, and there will always be someone who gets shafted by that. In this scenario a living person, in your scenario a corpse.

Again, you've just decided for everyone that a living person always takes priority over a corpse. Not cool.

...of course, I know it on a more intellectual level; funerals and the bells and whistles associated with them is about getting the relatives of the deceased through the grieving process. But they must of course respect the choice of the deceased - also his/her choice of indifference to the status quo - and it's not like there isn't anything to bury after organ donation anyway.

And the choice of the deceased would be in opting in. Opting out forces a choice. A choice some of us cannot make.

Put it simply, why shouldn't you donate all of your excess money to helping the poor? Unless you opt out, of course.

Because I'm alive and well to utilize it myself as I see (un)fit. Just like any organ donor can do with his/her body.

And you can still do that. As long as you opt out. And there's no guilt involved in opting out, is there?

And the bureaucracy responsible have never made mistakes on that count, have they?

Neither have every other bureaucracy ever.

Anarchy FTW?

Ad Absurdum. Anarchy couldn't even allow donation.

What's worse for your family?
1) Seeing your organs removed against your will.
2) Seeing your organs kept with the body against your will.

Your entire argument of "Living Bodies have more rights than Corpses" ignores the rights of all those who view the Corpse as the resting point of someone they loved.

There are numerous other ways that "opting out" would be the more efficient way to run the world, but you're not only painting the Organ Collectors as Angels, and the Organ Keepers as Devils - but you're also requiring the people most needing of Organs to make the final decision.

Here's a scenario: Your virgin mother of eight is about to die.

On the ward you have three people who have been in a coma since mandatory registration. They've never opted out. Each of them has a heart that could save this woman.

All it takes is you to pull that plug and you could save her.


(Hell's teeth - Hit word Limit - Second post coming)

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Equally, look at Euthanasia.

There is no way to opt-in to Euthanasia at the moment, apart from states like Oregon.

Let's say I'm dying of a terminal disease. (For this scenarios sake, my epilepsy has got to the point where it's tripping me out for longer each time, and leaves me in great pain.)

Now, I want to donate my organs to your Virgin Mother. The heart's probably fucked, but the kidneys are still going.

I can't call for my own death, despite opting in. But the mere fact I have opted in allows for people to interpret my last wishes and move me to Oregon where I can die and release my organs.

With the opt-out procedure, no Doctor knows if I've simply forgotten, or wasn't able to register before the mandatory point locked in.

 

[Luthir Fontaine]

Take them ill be dead why would i give a shit what happens to them, hell you can prop me up outside to scary crows = pretty much how i feel

 

[Sylvine]

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

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

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

You literally can't argue that an opt out system is not choice http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opt-out

Also, I'm not making decisions for anyone; the people themselves are making the decision to opt in by the very act of not opting out.

Its not like this would be a secret that the Government wouldn't tell people about; if someone wants to do something about it, they can.

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.

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.

I agree with you totally on the issue, however, its not a tautology.

To be alive and to control something are not one and the same.

 

[Abengoshis]

When you die there's three options for your organs:
- a) Go into a muddy ditch and rot.
- b) Go into an incinerator and get burned.
- c) Go into another person and give them a better, longer life.

(Yes, I used biased language. No, I do not care).

People who object to giving their organs are idiots. They are holding on to something they won't use and that people need.

Organ donation should be mandatory. If their is an opt-out their organs should still be taken, just in secret. :3

 

[y1fella]

Hell no I'd rather have all my organs removed loaded into a trebuchet and flung at a freshly painted white wall, the red splatter marks hopefully making what could be interpreted as modern art, then give them to someone in need. I'm dead anyway why not be an asshole? (rhetoric)

 

[Grimbold]

Opt-In: not enough donators.
Opt-out: somehow creepy.
I would say on your 16th birthday a mandatory clown should come to your house, give you an organ-shaped cake and ask you if you want to donate or not. So it would be ensured that everyone gets his will. And cake. And the socio-economic benefits that arise from the increasing number of donators outweigh the costs for clowns&cakes.

 

[Kingsnake661]

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?

Facing ones convections is never easy. Some would still feel the same, and hold true to there belifs, others would faulter, I'd like to think i have the strength of charater to actively live by my convections. And I hope i never have to test that either. *shrug*

Irreguardless, while you correctly highlight the plight of the family in need, your ignoring the plight of the family that just lost a loved one, and may well also be having there loved ones wishes or relgious viewpoints trampled on in the process. What of them? This is not a question or situatuion with an easy, or even right answer.

Manditory? No. To many people have vaild reason against it. (religious, personal beilfs.) I don't belive in trampling on them. But I wouldn't be against an opt out program. If your religious belifs aren't strong enough to actively act on, IE, you opt out, then, well, there you go. If your belifs aren't strong enough to motivate action, then, well, they aren't core values to you now are they?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I honestly wouldn't mind this.

And opt-in still allows this.

That's the problem. It's not about selfishness or selflessness, but personal(or guardian's) choice.

 

[LuckyClover95]

I like the idea of an opt-out system. I'm religious, but I don't believe donating organs is wrong (Jesus tried to heal people and we should try to be like Jesus, right? Anyway.) and I carry a donar card and have since when I was about 10 and my friends brother died and they donated his organs. However, if you believe it is wrong you are entitled to your belief.
Also, guy on the first page said he couldn't think of any religions that would ban it, but I know about half of Christianity and all of Islam does.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I would say on your 16th birthday a mandatory clown should come to your house, give you an organ-shaped cake and ask you if you want to donate or not.

Sir, I'd like to give you a medal for actually managing to creep the hell out of me.

Would the Clown look like this?

 

[NezumiiroKitsune]

No fucking way. f y'all think that then donating money to the poor should be mandatory. A kidney takes 10 years from your life, and makes it harder for you to piss, and limits the amount of times you can get drunk.

Are there any long-term risks?

There is a small possibility of a slight rise in blood pressure and excess protein in your urine. However studies have shown that there is no long-term effect on the health of the donor or your remaining kidney.

Am I at greater risk of developing kidney failure?

You are at no greater risk of developing kidney failure after donating than anyone in the general population.

Will it shorten my lifespan?

Studies have shown that donors live longer than the average population. This is because donors are selected on the basis of good health and are thoroughly screened prior to donation.

Will I have to change my lifestyle after donating?

No. You should lead a normal healthy life as before.

Will donating my kidney affect a future pregnancy or fathering a child?

The small amount of data available shows that, having donated one kidney, there is no evidence to suggest an increased risk of complications during pregnancy. A man?s fertility will not be affected.

http://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/ukt/how_to_become_a_donor/living_kidney_donation/questions_and_answers.jsp

However they don't mean live transplant. They mean donation solely after brain death.

 

[Alien Mole]

I honestly wouldn't mind this.

And opt-in still allows this.

That's the problem. It's not about selfishness or selflessness, but personal(or guardian's) choice.

How is it about that? The way I see it, either system allows an exactly equal amount of personal choice. It's just that in an opt-out system, 'can't be arsed' is, as a choice, beneficial to your fellow man.

 

[Weslebear]

My shit's mine, I'm tight in life and I am tight in death.

Someone would only get an organ if I was still alive (So I can consent or not depending on the details of why they need the organ, no alcoholic bastard is going to waste my kidneys etc), they were very close to me and it wouldn't kill me to lose it.

 

[GamemasterAnthony]

Rather interesting that I was watching MovieBob's review of "Repo Men" when I saw this thread in the Most Recent list...

Short answer: NO! The problem I see with making organ donation mandatory not only falls on personal rights, whether we are talking civil or religious, but it also creates a very scary problem as well. The problem being that as soon as you are forced into donation, you are soon seen as nothing more than a potential source of viable parts for other people...even before you are in any condition where you no longer need them.

Seriously...picture that scenario if you will, as it might actually be used as a screenplay for a movie. You are now required to donate and suddenly right in the middle of just walking from here to the bank, some random person comes up and asks for some part of you because their relative is dying. Unfortunately, it suddenly becomes an even worse situation as you don't have a say in the matter. You are hauled off to have a kidney removed because you have no choice but to donate one.

Or even worse...mandatory donation could create a black market of the blackest kind for organs. Basically where people are quite literally killed just so their parts could be harvested and used. Could you imagine THAT sick scenario?!?

So, like I said...no. Organ donation should NOT be made mandatory under any situation. The human race deserves better than to be seen as nothing more than spare parts for other members of the human race.

CAPTCHA: Theadish shame.

Heh...shame indeed.