Should organ donation be manditory?

[samfergo]

I dont think it should be mandatory, I mean in Australia the decision for it is thrust upon you at a young age and if you havent thought about it prior its a big decision for some, others it may be a no brain.

 

[Killclaw Kilrathi]

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.

That's fair enough, and I apologize for not picking up on that. I'm afraid I committed the forum sin of expecting a thread title to be consistent with the first post, so the opt-in part of it slipped my mind after a few pages. For the record most of my previous comments deal with mandatory donation, though I still have reservations about opt-out which I'll try to address.

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.

It's not so much the evil government I care about, it's the corporations who would inevitably take over this organ business. Even if not because of greed, the Democrats would privatize it to avoid being accused of "socialism", and the Republicans would do it because... well, because they're Republicans and support privatization (not to mention they tend to axe non-profit healthcare whenever they can, bad for business).

Think about this for a minute. Corporations are out for a profit, and with the US healthcare system the way it is the organs are going to go to the rich who can afford the highest level of insurance. Personally I trust my fellow man more than I would a corporation, and I don't trust either with my insides.

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.

I'd say we both agree here, so this is fairly moot. I'm not going to argue for a religion I don't believe in, and this only really becomes an issue if donation is mandatory.

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...?

But isn't that a fairly dangerous view to hold? The argument itself is solid, I'll give you that, but here we have to worry about the natural progression of this. What you're arguing in favour for is essentially a legally enforced charity, the notion that we all have a duty to be charitable towards others and if we're not it makes us criminals. What happens when they start reconsidering the exceptions for living people? I'm not going to sit here and talk about people being fed wholesale into sci-fi organ harvesters, but consider this. I have two kidneys, and only need one to live. Someone out there is dying who could use my spare kidney, so why shouldn't he have it? My health will suffer somewhat, but his will suffer more because of my lack of action. Their death is my criminal negligence!

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.

It's your choice to be lazy to opt-in, that's part of the system. The idea is that those who are passionate enough about it can do it, but by default the state keeps away from using your body for such things without permission. If they start telling people that they've essentially given implied permission at birth, that's when I start to get worried.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

I've never even thought about that, but you're absolutely right. Personally, I don't have a huge problem stepping on religious toes and suggesting mandatory enrollment. Though realistically, an opt-out system is the only thing that would even have a faint chance at passing within our lifetimes.

I understand that people's family's might be uncomfortable with the idea, though I think that would pass after one or two generations. What I do not understand is the argument that dead people might be uncomfortable with donating their organs. Last I heard, dead people aren't uncomfortable about anything on account of their being dead.

 

[kouriichi]

I think it should be 'opt-out' instead of 'opt-in'.

Your organs can help others more then yourself.
Especially if your dead.
Not like anyone would notice a missing kidney at your funeral, with that nice suit on and such.

 

[A Free Man]

Of course it should be. Humans are way to sentimental in my opinion. I mean let me put it this way, if pretending that your loved ones went to a kingdom made of candy makes you feel better about them dying, all the power to you, you can feel free to think whatever you like. But if you are willing to condemn people who are actually alive just to maintain that delusion (regardless of whether you believe it is true) is just wrong. Once people are dead they are just meat and bones, as far as I'm concerened if my organs can help anyone even in the slightest bit I would have no problem donating everything.

 

[Shio]

Of course it should be.

Says the person with the user name "A Free Man" XD

Irony is awesome!

 

[Shio]

Trust me in emergency situations where they don't have time to test or simply don't trust testing your blood they'd just use my friends anyway.

What? Are you suggesting they'd give a different type of blood to someone in an emergency? I hope not. That would kill them and result in a murder charge.

 

[A Free Man]

Of course it should be.

Says the person with the user name "A Free Man" XD

Irony is awesome!

Haha good call. Just for future reference my name is actually a play on my surname and has nothing to do with the literal interpretation. Even so I enjoy a decent level of freedom in my life but once I am dead I won't care what happens to my body because I won't be able to care and so it might as well go towards a good cause.

 

[Shio]

Of course it should be.

Says the person with the user name "A Free Man" XD

Irony is awesome!

Haha good call. Just for future reference my name is actually a play on my surname and has nothing to do with the literal interpretation. Even so I enjoy a decent level of freedom in my life but once I am dead I won't care what happens to my body because I won't be able to care and so it might as well go towards a good cause.

Good is a subjective term. Don't force your ideals upon others.

 

[A Free Man]

Of course it should be.

snip

snip

Good is a subjective term. Don't force your ideals upon others.

OK sorry for that, your totally right, we should just let thousands of people die because of a disagreement over the word good.

And besides I am not forcing anyone to do anything, I am merely saying that in my opinion it should be mandatory, obviously it would never be unless a vast majority of others agree with me in which case regardless of the its subjective nature it would be considered the right thing to do. If you do not like the concept of a majority determining what is considered right or wrong perhaps you would function better not living with other people, as that is essentially the only way to avoid that scenario.

 

[Shio]

And besides I am not forcing anyone to do anything, I am merely saying that in my opinion it should be mandatory.

I see... That's one interesting way of putting it.

"I'm not going to make you. But I would if I could."

 

[Vault101]

Personally i see organ donor(ing?) as a bit unneeded if we invested more in stem cell research we could just grow organs any way.


I would never donate my organs to anyone regardless if Im living or dead if they couldn't look after their own organs they can die just like very one else my organs are staying in me.

yeah....serves thoses sick people right! I mean who do they think they are? getting sick! fuck'em

in all seriousness..not all sickness is directly somones falut

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

large snip

I'm just going to sum up my entire argument for you;

'DEAD people need NOTHING'

'Stop dwelling on things like money/food/shelter etc, they mean jack shit when you are DEAD'

'If you are ALIVE, donation of ANYTHING is down to you. However, If you are DEAD, it doesn't have to be up to you because you don't need anything anymore.'

 

[YunikoYokai5]

Organ donation can be a dodgy subjects at times. My will would say only my family get my organs if they need them (else cremate me), because I don't want to sustain someone who destroyed their liver (for example) through alcohol abuse only to destroy my own as well. That's my greatest fear. That you can't control who the organs go to makes me weary. Someone has kidney disease, fine, my kidneys were working before I died (maybe...). And before people say 'But you'll be dead!'. I'm one of these people who believe you spend some time in some sort of afterlife before getting reincarnated. During that time I also believe you can (opt-in ) watch life as it plays out. And if I saw someone wrecking my organs, I'd be heartbroken. Call my belief system anything you like, I don't care XD .

As someone said, the opt-out option is bad for babies, since they can't, unless the mother has the right to opt them out. It could possibly scar the mother for live to learn that her stillborn is going to be opened up to salvage its organs (of course, there will be some who say 'no problem') . Me, personally, I prefer the opt-in.

Now, in life, if my brother/mum/sister (My dad's is a different blood type so I can't donate to him) needs a kidney, I'll be first in the line. Family always comes first for me.

Also, if people are living to about the 100 age, won't their organs be weakened with time and be more likely to cause problems? I'm not in the medical field, so someone will have to tell me.

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

"no longer in anyone's possession"

You can't have them.
Family can't have them.
Government can have them.

Fuck you.

Sigh, oh dear....

YOU can't use them, you are dead.

YOUR FAMILY may need them, In which case I presume they would get first service.

THE GOVERNMENT will give them to somebody who can use them on account of the fact that they are not dead. (bare in mind that this could be a member of your family).

So no, I am not denying them to everyone, I am merely denying them to the dead because they no longer need them.

 

[Hugga_Bear]

I love the bullshit "THEY'LL KILL YOU FOR YOUR ORGANS!!!"
Yeah, so they're going to let you die or kill you in order to take your organs so they can...try and potentially save someone else's life?

I call retardation on that argument. My god.

It should be opt out, if you don't care enough then it's not gonna bother you, if you do care then you can...opt...out.

There's no logical reason for it to be opt in except to please the nutters who think we're gonna be cutting up 1 year olds.

 

[J3envolio]

I'd be in favor of making it mandatory. And having to opt out instead of volunteering your organs by way of the card.

I think I'm with you on this one. Personally I couldn't care less as to what happens to my body when I die anyway. I understand that it could be difficult for any living relatives of mine, but they'd need to understand that by donating my organs I'd be saving lives. Quite ironic really, I'll be able to save lives from beyond the grave.

As for making it mandatory, no. I think people should have to option to choose. I think the problem is that many people just can't be bothered signing up for organ donation so making it an opt-out situation would definitely get more people involved. And if people forget to opt-out, well that their fault.

 

[Twilight_guy]

No. There are several religions that do not believe in removing organs from the body and forcing people to be organ donators violates there ability to practice their religion.

 

[DonMartin]

I dont know about mandatory, but it should certainly be encouraged. I think a lot of people would, but they dont think about it or even realize it. Im sure there''s at least one person like this:

Me: "Hey, what do you think of organ donation?"
Straussie von Ribbenfraud: "I think it's great, I suppose. Why?"
Me: "Would you donate your organs when you die? I mean, youre not using them then, are you?
Straussie von Ribbenfraud: "Hm. Never thought about it. Sure, I suppose. Why not."
Me: "Goodie, old chum"

I cant see a reason not to donate either.

 

[Arehexes]

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?

Here is what I said when we were talking about my grandmother "When it's time for her to go it's time to go, it's selfish for us to want to hold on to something when there is no chance of it getting better" (I said the same thing to my mom when we talked about what to do if she was in a state of no return, and that rule applies to me). Now you my say but a new organ can save the person, which is true. But what about everyone in the third world who can't even eat, or have clean water or even the medicine we use here. And even though I'm dead I would like to know I can give a final screw you to the world