Should organ donation be manditory?

[Shio]

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

If you really wanted to save space, massive ovens would do it better.

 

[Trasken]

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).

My organs will either rot with me or get sold off to the highest bidder. And I like that.

I give up. Your stupidity wins.

As for your opinion; enjoy it, its the only friend you will ever have.


Goodbye, I won't be replying to you again, you paragon of humanity you.

Whoa whoa whoa, now calm down, this isn't fair, just because her views are pragmatic doesn't mean she's automatically evil.
Just cause you get a stiffy about donating organs out of the goodness of your heart, many people would rather their families get something out of it if such a hypothetical case were to happen.
According to your organ donation ideas, how about you donate a quarter of your paycheck to the poor? they need money to live!!!

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

Insults and sarcastic name calling? That's not the way to validate your opinion.

Insults? Yes.
Name calling? I didn't call you a name.

I have already validated my opinion, as have you. The argument stops now.

Oh and yes, when I said I wouldn't reply I was lying...

I hoped that you'd get the hint.

 

[Shio]

Personally, I don't see it as forcing. You're giving people the same choice that they have now, you're simply changing the way you choose.

You're forcing them to have to opt-out.

Insults and sarcastic name calling? That's not the way to validate your opinion.

Insults? Yes.
Name calling? I didn't call you a name.

I have already validated my opinion, as have you. The argument stops now.

Oh and yes, when I said I wouldn't reply I was lying...

I hoped that you'd get the hint.

Insults tend to invalidate your opinion.

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

Whoa whoa whoa, now calm down, this isn't fair, just because her views are pragmatic doesn't mean she's automatically evil.
Just cause you get a stiffy about donating organs out of the goodness of your heart, many people would rather their families get something out of it if such a hypothetical case were to happen.
According to your organ donation ideas, how about you donate a quarter of your paycheck to the poor? they need money to live!!!

It is fair, read the rest of the argument and you will se why I said thiose things.

Using that example my point is that my paycheck is mine while I still need it, but as soon as i'm dead I don't give a damn who gets it.

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

Insults tend to invalidate your opinion.

Not true as long as the insult doesn't contradict your opinion.

 

[Shio]

Personally, I don't see it as forcing. You're giving people the same choice that they have now, you're simply changing the way you choose.

You're forcing them to have to opt-out.

And the other way around you're forcing people to have to opt in.

The choice is still there for both either way, I don't see how forcing one group of people is any worse than forcing another.

Because choosing to donate something (money, time, organs - whatever) is always a choice. You don't make people donate their money until they decide not to.

 

[KorLeonis]

Nah, no way you'd get it made mandatory, too many people would put up a fuss. Personally, I'd rather be ground up, made into sausage and fed to the homeless. Baring that, my remains are going to a lab somewhere. Train medical students with my cadaver or something.

 

[fenrizz]

Personally, I don't see it as forcing. You're giving people the same choice that they have now, you're simply changing the way you choose.

You're forcing them to have to opt-out.

And the other way around you're forcing people to have to opt in.

The choice is still there for both either way, I don't see how forcing one group of people is any worse than forcing another.

Because choosing to donate something (money, time, organs - whatever) is always a choice. You don't make people donate their money until they decide not to.

Not the same at all.
You are not gonna be using your organs after you die.

The opt out option arrangement is there so one can make use of the organs of people who don't really care either way.
They aren't going to opt in or opt out.

If you fell strongly about it, just opt out.

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

Because choosing to donate something (money, time, organs - whatever) is always a choice. You don't make people donate their money until they decide not to.

You donate money on the spot while you arguably still need it. This is generous.
You donate organs when you are dead and no longer need them. This is logical.

see the difference?

 

[theshadowcult]

Hell no. That is like saying we should pay for air. It is not something that should ever be though of seriously.

Edit: I would also like to point out, that mandatory organ donation (love an oxymoron), would lead to a world where montyp's live organ transplants and repo men become a reality.

 

[Shio]

Personally, I don't see it as forcing. You're giving people the same choice that they have now, you're simply changing the way you choose.

You're forcing them to have to opt-out.

And the other way around you're forcing people to have to opt in.

The choice is still there for both either way, I don't see how forcing one group of people is any worse than forcing another.

Because choosing to donate something (money, time, organs - whatever) is always a choice. You don't make people donate their money until they decide not to.

Not the same at all.
You are not gonna be using your organs after you die.

The opt out option arrangement is there so one can make use of the organs of people who don't really care either way.
They aren't going to opt in or opt out.

If you fell strongly about it, just opt out.

I disagree. Making someone donate something until they decide not to, goes against the entire point of donation. Besides, do you want the government to own your body by default? No thanks!

Because choosing to donate something (money, time, organs - whatever) is always a choice. You don't make people donate their money until they decide not to.

You donate money on the spot while you arguably still need it. This is generous.
You donate organs when you are dead and no longer need them. This is logical.

see the difference?

I see it as far more logical to sell them to those who can afford it. How is it more logical to make no money and save a life, than make money and save a life?

Your issue is your own personal view of ethics. That has nothing to do with logic.

 

[Chelsea O'shea]

notence 1st responders see that card on you,they stop trying to help you,then you are nothing but parts to be distributed to them

 

[Coraxian]

As stated previously in this thread: it's already in effect here as "presumed consent" and the family can intervene, unless you have opted in.

But , seeing as this seems to be getting rather heated, I'd like to considder the following:

The opt-out system has the benefit that you can have a list of people who are so attached to their organs that they don't want them replaced when they're faulty either.

Should save a few organs to save people who didn't opt out.

That's not the legislation over here right now, but reading some of the comments in this thread, I'm starting to considder this.

 

[fenrizz]

Personally, I don't see it as forcing. You're giving people the same choice that they have now, you're simply changing the way you choose.

You're forcing them to have to opt-out.

And the other way around you're forcing people to have to opt in.

The choice is still there for both either way, I don't see how forcing one group of people is any worse than forcing another.

Because choosing to donate something (money, time, organs - whatever) is always a choice. You don't make people donate their money until they decide not to.

Not the same at all.
You are not gonna be using your organs after you die.

The opt out option arrangement is there so one can make use of the organs of people who don't really care either way.
They aren't going to opt in or opt out.

If you fell strongly about it, just opt out.

I disagree. Making someone donate something until they decide not to, goes against the entire point of donation. Besides, do you want the government to own your body by default? No thanks!

After you are dead your organs go to someone who can use them.
What is the point of them rotting in the ground?

On principle?

notence 1st responders see that card on you,they stop trying to help you,then you are nothing but parts to be distributed to them

Nothing but lies.

 

[jamesworkshop]

I'm okay with it I have no problem with doning but I know i'll never bother to sign up for it

 

[Shio]

After you are dead your organs go to someone who can use them.
What is the point of them rotting in the ground?

You don't need all the money you have now. How about the government make you give some away until you tell them to stop?

Besides, mine aren't rotting; my organs are going to the highest bidder!

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

I see it as far more logical to sell them to those who can afford it. How is it more logical to make no money and save a life, than make money and save a life?

I wasn't talking about that at all, I was just saying that you can't compare the donation of money with the donation of organs.

As long as your organs are being re-used, you're being logical.
Giving them away for free is being generous as well as logical.
Keeping them is being both selfish and illogical.