Should organ donation be manditory?

[oathblade]

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
EDIT: to be clear just as the guy below said, I mean more opt-out than the current opt in thing

I was all ready to freak over the idea till I read your edit. Even then I had a very emotional response that really I cant say is rooted in any kind of logic. Yea it seems like a good idea - and my instinct is 'WTF NO!' for no good reason at all. A part of it is the 'what are they going to be used for' argument. If its for organ replacement I'm worried some rich guy will off people just to get their organs. Research Id be much more comfortable with because its less prone to that sort of thing .. well till companies need to figure out what the toxins they have been dumping into the environment have done.

 

[JMeganSnow]

As for the "buying for nothing and selling for $200,000"-problem: You said it Yourself, it barely covers costs, so it's not exactly "buying for nothing".

They're buying it for nothing--they're not compensating the OWNER in any way, shape, or form. Why should the people who procure the organ, transport it, manufacture all the medical equipment necessary for the above, and who prep it for transplant be compensated but the person who actually grew the organ inside of their body should NOT and, in fact, should be legally required to provide said organ free-of-charge? If you're going to make this argument, be consistent and require that doctors, medical device manufacturers, transportation services, and nurses all be legally required to work for free. Or be REALLY consistent and require EVERYONE to work for free, because that's what it'd eventually amount to.

Opting out instead of opting in does not mean Your body will be picked apart regardless of whether someone actually needs a kidney or not. That wouldn't be, as You say it, very cost-effective.

Opting-out is not the same thing as legally mandatory. I don't really care either way whether consent is presumed unless you register non-consent or whether non-consent is presumed unless you register consent. You have to pick one as the default. However, I have strong doubts as to whether presumption of consent would increase supply. In Ohio, for instance, the little check box on your driver's license where you say you want to be an organ donor is presumed as first-person consent, meaning that it legally overrides the wishes of your next-of-kin should you die. That means that, technically, the tissue bank could go ahead and harvest anything and everything useful from your corpse even if your family protests.

Does this ever happen? HELL NO. It'd be a PR nightmare and taking bits from dead people is a PR-deprived enough practice as it is. If you presume consent, there will be an enormous PR backlash the first time some poor Jew or Muslim (both sects adamantly against messing with the dead IIRC) gets harvested because they didn't know that they had to register that they refuse to donate. There'd be a huge rush on the part of large numbers of people to register their non-consent "just in case" because they can always change their minds later. And then they'd forget about it and you'd be stuck with a potentially enormous segment of the population on the do-not-harvest list.

And no, it's not. If it's estabilished as part of a (in this case) democratic, legal procedure, it becomes part of the social contract. Just the same as stealing a twenty from Your wallet is theft, but taxing Your salary is not.

Taxing my salary IS theft, and democracy can go screw itself. As Benjamin Franklin once so aptly noted: democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Just because 51% of the population can be convinced to go along with an idea doesn't make it right, and the fact that there's a huge procedure involved doesn't make that right either.

What makes it right or wrong is the reference to ethical principle--and that ethical principle must *itself* be based on facts in order to be valid. The facts are these: in order to live, people need certain things. In order to get those things, they must work. In order to work, they must think. The better your thinking, the more productive your work, the more and better things you can get. This is what some call "natural justice" (although this is a misnomer): it is the automatic, functioning state of nature. Thought and effort produce rewards. Injustice is a human invention--an attempt to interfere with this process. It is not *unjust* that some people can't or won't think or work as well as some other people, it's nature, neither just nor unjust.

It is interesting to me that it is injustice that is often some kind of positive action (not positive in the sense of good, but in the other sense of "definite"), whereas justice usually describes a negative action--in essence a *lack* of interference. That is the only kind of "social contract" anyone has the right to expect from me or from anyone--that I leave them free to face nature as they leave me free to do so.

Taxation consists of taking rewards I have earned and giving them to people who have not earned them. Their purposes are immaterial to me, all that matters to me is that this reward did not exist without me--my thought, my judgment, my effort--yet others presume to cut me out of the equation as if all that matters is the reward and now how it came to be. This is contra-fact, contra-nature, contra-justice.

THIS is my ethical principle, and by this principle it doesn't matter how many people say something is okay (or how few).

 

[Dags90]

By the way, when you die (*when* you die) an autopsy must be conducted by law to determine your cause of death beyond reasonable doubt. Oh yes. Somewhere out there there's a scalpel with your name carved into it as it will be carved into you.

I wish that were the case consistently in the U.S. Many people die from genetic diseases that could have (and should have) been diagnosed at their parents' autopsy. Unsurprisingly, many people opt out of having people autopsied if they have the choice.

I think opt out is the better option.

 

[JMeganSnow]

It's immoral to buy or sell organs or any live saving medicine. It creates a divide between the people that can pay to safe their lives and the people that can't.

This divide exists in nature--no government can create it OR REMOVE IT, and attempts to do so simply result in mass devastation as people try desperately spitting into the wind.

Everyone dies--in fact, you could say that death is our default state and life merely an accident brought about by considerable effort. Nothing and no one can keep you alive forever. To keep yourself alive even *temporarily*, you must make an effort.

Life-saving medicine isn't a boon that drops out of the sky. It has to be created, often by extreme effort. What entitles you to the efforts of others that have created this value? That you have exerted your own effort and created your own values that you can trade. This is what money is--the value you have created and thus have to offer to other people who have created values that you want. You want them because they let you live and live well.

If it is the duty of some people to create values but not be compensated for that creation, then they are slaves. So in essence, what you're arguing here is that nobody should be allowed to buy or sell values because *then we wouldn't have slavery any more*. GOSH, what a horrible world that would be.

In short: you have to support your own life. You have to feed yourself, clothe yourself, shelter yourself, and provide for your own medical care if you want to live. You may become unable to do one or all of the above, in which case you will die. It happens to everyone. If you're very fortunate, you *may* live in a society where people will assist you. This does not entitle you to DEMAND that they assist you.

 

[ascorbius]

Organ Donation should NEVER be mandatory.
My body is my own personal property and that fact does not change once I die. Unless I say otherwise, you do not have permission to take my organs.

If I was dying and the only way I could live was by taking the organs of someone who'd refused or even simply not stated that they'd wish to be an organ donor, I would rather Die than take their organs.


Even after death, your body is subject to your wishes. People have beliefs. These cannot and MUST NOT be violated - even if this means saving someone's life.

Fact: Everyone dies!

Organ Donors give the gift of life.
When you take a gift without permission, that's theft.

 

[Brutal Peanut]

Sounds like a lot of organs, since a lot of people die everyday. I can just imagine the machines they'd build to harvest all those organs.
"Right lads, start the conveyor belt!" o_o;;

Mandatory? No. People will see it as a breach of their privacy, even if they are dead. Some people want to be completely buried or burned when the time comes. On the same token some religions require you to be complete. It may sound silly, but that's the principles in which they follow and lead their lives - and that's something that can't be denied them.

While I think some people 'should' do it because I think it's 'right' and there are people who actually need organs who didn't spend years abusing their bodies, doesn't make any of it fact. All of these opinions are going to be entirely subjective. It should perhaps be encouraged and people should be educated about the process so they would be more willing to help people in need if they pass on - but it should stay voluntary.

Their soft fleshy innards, their decision.

 

[Sylvine]

Read the OP again, this is about MANDATORY organ donation.

Same to You. Read the OP, not just the thread title. Even before the clarification edit, the first line says:

"I thourght mabye unless said otherwise, you should mabye have your organs donated?". Badly worded, but still clearly an opt-out system.

For someone who hates to sound like a conspiracy theorist, You sure sound like one. Consider this: Ignoring the opt-out-forms of the deceased would be only insubstantially easier than forging donor cards. Anyone could forge the card itself, and if the "evil government" can make a record disappear, they can make it appear just as easily.

The hard truth is: You don't have control as soon as You are (brain)dead. You speak of Jehova's Witnesses - yes, I had the pleasure, my Mom used to be one. I'd like You to consider this, instead: If I go out, murder a Jehova's Witness, harvest his organs and blood and use them for transplants (hypothetical, crazy situations) - do they go to hell? If yes, they're fucked anyways, because there's always the possibility of someone desecrating the body. If no, it doesn't matter (to them) if they opt out and someone criminally decides to ignore that.

If there's an option not to donate, and You use it, and someone ignores it - that's a crime. But it's a different pair of shoes.

Being respectful of people's final wishes is not a law of nature, it's a convention. If my final wish was for some bastard to be murdered, no one would legally endorse it. One could argue that not donating a perfectly good organ which someone desperately needs is aequivalent to murder. It certainly can fall under failure to render assistance, which IS a crime in many a state. Now, when the person's alive, there are other considerations. When the person is dead, though, and in a secular state...?

Also, for the record: Yes, actually, I do. I'm sceptical, but I can't imagine living in a state without having at least some measure of trust in the governing apparatus. Or, to put it differently: I trust my fellow human even less to do the right thing. Hell, I was even too lazy to do it myself up 'til now, and I support organ donations ideologically. I'm walking proof that the opt-in system fails on at least one level.

~Sylv

 

[AgentNein]

You want my organs? Fine, pay my living relativs for everything you take. Im not the wellfare and most certainly not after death, either.

...seriously? Do you charge when you give blood too?

 

[Choppaduel]

It would be better if it was opt out. You'd aggravate the zealous by making it mandatory.

Damn state, telling me what to do with my organs!

 

[Uncreation]

By the time we get over the political and ethical back and forth that making it mandatory would cause, we'll be cloning organs in the lab.

I really, really hope so. That would be the best solution anyway, IMO.

I don't think it should be opt-out, and i sure as hell should not be mandatory. Personally i don't want to be a donor. Because organs are generally not harvested from the dead, they are harvested from people who are so called "brain dead". But people have been known to wake up from the deepest of comas, or recover from brain damage even after decades. So if there is the slightest chance for me to recover (and there almost allways is a chance) i would not like to be harvested for organs and then have the plug pulled on me. So, in short i would not like to be an organ donor. At all. Period. Thank you.

 

[Bigsmith]

I remember talking about this in some class back in secondary school.

I said, "I don't think that organ donation should be mandatory, even in times of supply. But, I do think that a different system needs to be used to determine who can and who can not donate organs. The current system, where you put your name down saying that you will donate your organs is what leads to shortages, with people saying that they will but never getting around to it.

The system I propose is that it's an Opt out system. Where you need to put your name down in order for you to not have your organs up for grabs when you die. This way we shouldn't ever had a shortage."

But, one thing I didn't mention was transplants whilst your alive. Such as Kidney transplants.

I don't think that this should use the "Opt out" system. If should use the "Opt in" system as I want my organs whilst I'm alive. Do what you wish to do with them when I'm dead, that is, if they are any good by then. X3

 

[Gorobrin]

i can see your point but there are also some stuff that i would like to point out (some have already been pointed out)
1. some religions don't like organ donation
2. some people want to sell their organs to leave their family with a bit of money
3. its their right to say whether they want their organs donated.
also only slightly off topic but this will set me up for another point
people are going to get abortions. no way around that. why did they stop stem cell research when it could very easily be the future of medicine. no extra organs? make one.

 

[Nero09]

Mandatory? No
Default, until the individual says otherwise? Yes

 

[CrystalShadow]

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

Don't most religions espouse helping and assisting your fellow man whenever it is possible. Surely by donating your organs you could save many lives. What kind of God would damn a man for helping his fellow human beings because he no longer has any organs?

Look, religions can have all kind of weird reasons that don't make sense to those that don't believe in the religion.

The most obvious kind of religious belief that relates to not donating organs would be one that believed the body itself had to be treated in some kind of ritual manner for the deceased person to progress into the afterlife properly. (or something similar).

(ancient egyptian religion comes to mind as one extreme example, though it also has a few weird quirks in that regard.)

If part of a person's body had been removed, it would interfere with these kind of religious beliefs. Which could range from the notion that a person's soul would remain trapped with parts of the body, to them arriving in the afterlife incomplete.

This is probably made a lot worse by organ donation frequently relating to transplants. Which means the transplanted parts of the body aren't even dead.

If the body holds any religious significance in the process of what happens to a person's soul when they die, the concept of part of their body being dead, but part of it living on wouldn't be likely to go down that well.

 

[Merkavar]

yeah i think the defualt should be everyone is a donor and you have to fill a form in to not be a donor cause of religion or prefrences.

But i think the biggest issue with organ donations is the family of the deceased. you might have ticked all the boxes to be a organ donar but it your mother, wife, husband doesnt want to give up your organs then doctors cant touch it which is stupid.

They need a registery that has the power of the law behind it that you can register to be a organ donor and no one can get in the way.

The biggest arguement i hear is a religious one. like you need all your kidneys to get into heaven or something. but i would think organ donation would be a free ride to heaven for all but the most evil people. you killed someone but then saved 3 lives by donating your organs instead of having them rot in the ground. insta-karma.

 

[thepyrethatburns]

Sure. So what do You propose? Because, see, I can take any "My personal good" arguments to the next logical extreme as well. What is the point? Yes, everything is abusable. It's the task of the legislative in a country to make sure it's as difficult as possible to abuse it, have controlling instances etc. etc. You can't hold the corruption of a system against having a system in the first place, because every system is corruptable. The alternative is anarchy, and that has quite a lot of weak points as well.

Besides, I disagree with calling it dictatorian methods. I think we should have it, I present arguments for it, and I expect them to stand on the basis of their own logical merit. If enough people are convinced, it's a democratic choice. If it is passed, and anyone disagrees, they can rally against it, or leave the country. Pure democracy.

~Sylv

Fair enough. We will have to agree to disagree on whether it's dictatorial or not because I could argue the opposite. Same with opt-out. You could argue that the system would still provide choice as you already have where I could cite examples of how badly many existing opt-out systems are set up so it is near impossible to opt-out and we would eventually just keep circling each other.

Thusly, I will agree to disagree.

I will say this though. There have been posts where two people are already saying "Let's just harvest prisoners". The problem with pure democracy is that people have been very quick to dehumanize classes of people for "the greater good". Pure democracy doesn't exist for the same reason that pure communism doesn't exist. It looks good on paper but people are an irrational and illogical bunch.

You can even see it in this topic. My brand of logic tells me that it would be both selfish and wasteful for me to refuse to allow people to harvest what they need after my death instead of letting my organs just rot in the ground. Others have said it's more logical to demand payment for their organs or noone gets them. Still others say that they don't want to be chopped up. I'd like to think that my decision to donate is both an ethical and logical one but that is solely my viewpoint.

This is why I favor the Constitutional Republic model. It may be harder to change the laws but I do believe that Tyranny of the Majority is something to guard against and, when confronted with the option, I veer towards freedom of the individual.

I would also like to complement you on your honesty. Most people wouldn't have admitted that they hadn't signed up to be an organ donor for fear of weakening their argument. It is a show of character that you did admit it.

 

[thepyrethatburns]

The biggest arguement i hear is a religious one. like you need all your kidneys to get into heaven or something. but i would think organ donation would be a free ride to heaven for all but the most evil people. you killed someone but then saved 3 lives by donating your organs instead of having them rot in the ground. insta-karma.

Plus, without mocking anyone's faith, most of these religions came about during a time that had a lot of people die from pointy bits of metal gouging out various body parts.

I cannot believe in a faith that says that, if I were to get hit by a semi tonight and half my body becomes a sticky paste attached to the grill, I would have to spend the rest of eternity that way. (And that's to say nothing of the fact that the squishy parts rot away faster than bone.)

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

As in manditory where you have no choice whatsoever? NO

Even with an opt out system, I would have to say no. Unless it was just a simple form, and not having to deal with government bureaucracy at many levels

That being said, I am an organ and blood donor, and I would recomend it to anyone.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

You do it when you get a drivers liscence/id and you fill out the form.

Don't have either.

Check this box if you want to opt-out.

Just like the EULA which you read every time, of course?

A system where everyone is magicly a donor unless you go down to city hall and fill out a form is not a good system imo.

Totally agree. And is what I've been trying to argue.

 

[Hawk eye1466]

I would say no because I can see doctors saying he's sick let him die so we can give his organs to people that aren't as sick.