Should organ donation be manditory?

[y1fella]

Own a more serious note I still wouldn't agree. I honestly think the idea of mandatory organ harvest is disgusting. Doesn't natural selection say something along the lines of "Survival of the Fittest" not survival of the weakest because the fit but unfortunate have there organs torn out and given to them so thy can spread there weakness until eventually humanity is reduced to a species of shriveled vampire like monsters relentlessly hunting to down and slaughtering the few remaining fit. Fighting over there still beating heart to see who gets to live for a few more precious years... I sought of stopped being serious there.

 

[Woodsey]

I thourght mabye unless said otherwise, you should mabye have your organs donated?

honestly I cant imagine many reasons NOT to do it...perhaps religious or what ever

No it should not be mandatory. There are many religious and personal reasons not to donate your organs.

Seems kind of un-religious to be so selfish.

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

Does that make you religious then? I'm so confused!

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

The system we have now is not perfectly fine. People are stuck on huge waiting lists whilst they wait for organs, whilst perfectly useful organs are buried in the ground, because people are too fucking selfish to let go of them after they're dead.

What, pray tell, do you need your organs for when you are dead? "Not the best thing", my arse.

You look at this thread, and its the same old thing: "blah blah blah, state control." YOU ARE SAVING OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES.

The state's involvement, at most, is as the intermediary. Its not like the PM sits on a fucking throne of harvested organs whilst laughing manically into his little "Socialist" hands.

 

[Nazz3]

Not that I have any problems with donating my organs, I dont think something like that should be mandatory. Its your body after all

 

[Shio]

If somebody thinks that people shouldn't care what happens to them when they are dead, then suggesting that something horrific will happen to their DEAD body will not phase such a person.

Cool. So I now have the rights to your body. If you want to opt out, come see me in Australia. If not, upon death your body is mine.

That's the exact same situation you are proposing be forced upon me. I'm not down with that. You might be. Good for you. Have fun. I aint.

 

[MrA]

It would definitely be a problem for religion :/ I personally don't think it should be mandatory, as much as I can see it being selfish, I just don't want someone else touching my organs, even in death, I just want to stay in one piece

 

[mcnally86]

"No way I don't want my organs touching some sick guys."
~Bart Simpson

 

[satoru]

An Opt-Out system would work much better. Make it as part of your drivers license or voter registration. To those who object, what's wrong with an opt-out system? If you feel THAT strongly about it, you can opt out. If you can't be bothered to read or care, then why should people suffer because of your own ignorance? If you have religious reasons, that's fine, opt out. No one is 'forcing' you to, and the benefits are huge for the vast amount of people who need access to donor organs.

I think it should be contingent on getting some kind of service, such as a drivers license, ID card, voter registration, etc. I realize you're not going to get everyone this way, and inevitably you'll have a contingent of people that will essentially 'opt-out' because they don't have any of the above. I think that provides a good balance between a 'general' opt-out' policy, which is contentious because some people are not going to be notified for various reasons. So it's not a 'forced organ harvesting program'!!! Simply that those people who get some kind of service must 'opt-out' of organ donorship. This way those who 'don't care' will donate, and those who are against it for various reasons can address it.

 

[Kyoufuu]

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

No, it really isn't. It's about saving lives.

 

[jowo96]

I'm assuiming you mean post mortem organ donation, I'm not giving some alcoholic my kidney while I'm still using it.

But yes, I think that people should be on the donor list by default. People will no doubt feel that they are entitled to be able to choose to be a donor rather than it to be a presuposition that they do want to be but, what people believe they are entitled to and what is for the greater good rarely match up.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

No, it really isn't. It's about saving lives.

That's half the problem. It's not about saving lives. It's about having extra materials that could be used to save lives.

There's a big difference. What you're doing is switching the default position of Humanity from
I wish to choose if I am to be used for spare parts to
I will allow my body to be used as spare parts unless I say otherwise.

It should be the individual's right to work for society, rather than society's right to require payback from the individual.

Would the donating non-smokers want their lungs to be given to smokers after death?

 

[Gigano]

...

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

A decision they would never get to make anyway, as only their legal guardian is empowered to act on their behalf.

Problem with that. My sufferer is singular, your saviour could be anyone.

How could a individual which have chosen that its organs should be used to save people, and whose choice gets shafted be considered any less "singular" than an individual who have chosen that its corpse is to retain its organs, and whose choice gets shafted?

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.

She might not be saved through just one transplant (although some are), but she may well die from lack of one.

And what condition?

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

I doubt there is need to question that many people have been saved though transplant of organs they had dire need for.

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

Whereas you have decided that as a point of departure, the opposite is to be the case with the choice of an opt-in solution.

So yes, we want differing social contracts (or rather social contracts which both center around the individual choice, but with different results if that choice is passivity), and must argue for them. Very cool.

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

The mere knowledge of the opt-in solution also forces a choice, and clearly specifies the consequences of not being able to make it. Only difference is what those who choose passivity will end up with, and at the end they might just as well regret not being donors as they would being so.

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

None at all.

Ad Absurdum. Anarchy couldn't even allow donation.

Hence the need for a bureaucracy, and the inability to hold its inherent imperfection against it.

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.

Depends on the family.

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.

No more so than the opt-in solution can already do, and it's ultimately still the choice of embracing organ donation - or the choice of remaining passive in the face of it - made by their loved one itself which would deny them a whole corpse to mourn.

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.

Or giving them the opportunity to make a decision in the first place.

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.

If they haven't died, then they aren't donor material.

I doubt any doctor would make himself a murderer even to save another patient. And if he would, it has no relation to the opt-in/opt-out discussion, as he'd then go ahead anyway.

 

[team star pug]

From a Government view, They don't need them, and they can a person a longer life so they will work more. Communism on your organs I say!

 

[bombadilillo]

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

No, it really isn't. It's about saving lives.

None of those arguements fit for opt out. And they are all just rambling.

 

[Jodah]

I wouldn't save most people while I'm alive, why would I do so once I'm dead.

 

[Yechezkel]

Everyone in this thread realises that organ harvesting occurs while the person from whom the harvesting is being done is still alive, correct? While organs from the stiffs that are still warm can be used, the quality thereof is much easier to assure when harvesting from the merely brain-dead or victims of CDJS--Can't Do Jack Syndrome. So strictly speaking, you are still using them.

 

[Korak the Mad]

I do believe that people should donate their organs, especially from the deceased. The reason is that if someone dies and has a perfectly working organ that someone can use, give it to the person that needs it, the dead person isn't using it anymore.

Yet, there are things that can come with the donated organ, what I'm talking about is cellular memory. That is when certain personality traits of the donor seem to tag along with organ. Usually changes in taste or style, but sometimes changes in attitude or ideas and even change in the personality of the person who recieved the organ.

There are some people who believe that a certain part of them stays behind if they die and their organs are donated. Frankly, it would be kind of cool if someone suddenly started to think the way I do if they recieved one of my organs.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Everyone in this thread realises that organ harvesting occurs while the person from whom the harvesting is being done is still alive, correct? While organs from the stiffs that are still warm can be used, the quality thereof is much easier to assure when harvesting from the merely brain-dead or victims of CDJS--Can't Do Jack Syndrome. So strictly speaking, you are still using them.

Being brain dead is no different than body wide organ failure.

 

[Capcom4ever]

No

 

[Zac Smith]

Defiantly not, they are my organs. If I chose to donate that's my decision. I don't know if it's true, but I do like the idea of filters, i.e. choosing that that lungs for example won't go to a smoker, or liver to alcoholic

 

[Yuno Gasai]

The way I see it is that when I'm dead, I'm not exactly going to have much use for my body.. So why not at least attempt to help someone live a little longer?

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

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

The above is pretty much why I believe it shouldn't be mandatory.