Should organ donation be manditory?

[DonMartin]

Snippety Snoo

Just thought I'd welcome you to the Escapist, my good man. Stay out of the basement.

 

[Vault101]

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

1. Im sorry I dont quite understand the conection your making to 3rd world countries, from what I can see this is an entirely different issue

2. so are you talking about the fact that your denying somone the gift of life a "screw you"?, thats not being whimsical or cool, thats just being a dick, its one thing to go out with a bang or insult the government or whatever you feel the need to hate, its another thing to laugh at the fact "I COULD save somones life, but screw the world! so no...hehehehe ho ho ho"

 

[Jewrean]

No it should not be mandatory. People have many reasons not donating their body parts. Among these are their culture / religion or quite simply being uncomfortable with the practice entirely. Yes, logically it's the right thing to do. But the human brain isn't always a logical thing and forcing something upon it that just doesn't feel right is fascism. Don't be a dictator. If people want to donate, good on them.

 

[A Free Man]

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."

I don't know if you are familiar with the whole concept of quotes, but generally when you use a quote you have to actually quote what the person said, not make up your own interpretation of the wording. Like I said before, I am only putting forward my opinion, if that opinion is one that is generally shared by the population then I would assume that means it is a valid opinion, if not I am open to other reasoning but so far all you have done is isolate parts of my reasoning and attempt to discredit them in something that I can only assume is an attempt at humour. But going from one of your previous arguments how exactly do you think these issues should be handled?

Lets take murder as an example, I think the murder of other people (in general not for all specific cases) is wrong. Therefore I think that it is not good. But as you pointed out good is a subjective term and I shouldn't "force [my] ideals upon others". So what do you think should happen in this case, I keep quiet about my opinion and those that think murder is morally correct should be able to kill anyone they want?

 

[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

1. Im sorry I dont quite understand the conection your making to 3rd world countries, from what I can see this is an entirely different issue

2. so are you talking about the fact that your denying somone the gift of life a "screw you"?, thats not being whimsical or cool, thats just being a dick, its one thing to go out with a bang or insult the government or whatever you feel the need to hate, its another thing to laugh at the fact "I COULD save somones life, but screw the world! so no...hehehehe ho ho ho"

In response to 1:
The point was I can't really feel bad when little billy can't make it without a new kidney but besides that has the best medical treatment; while other countries as a whole can barely get food/water. Or maybe I'm off my rocker again, I don't know anymore

In response to 2:
Yep that's what I'm talking about plain and simple it's one big screw you to the world. But I am not doing it to be "whimsical or cool" it's just what I believe and how I want to live my life. Thanks though it feels good to be called a dick, and how is me hating man kind in general any different from me hating the government? It's my protest on how screwed up man kind has gotten.

 

[awmperry]

Of course it shouldn't be mandatory. Donating organs is a good thing, no question about it, but I have a few major objections to it:

1 - It's my body, not the government's. At the risk of sounding like one of the vast horde of paranoid nutcases, our governments already control so much of our lives, it isn't right for them to also decree the disposition of our bodies after death.

2 - Donating should be a choice to do a good thing for other people. If donation becomes mandatory... well, for a start it's not donation any more, it's just harvesting. And secondly, it becomes just "this is what happens after death", rather than something a person can be proud of.

3 - Opt-in gives people the choice. Opt-out makes the choice difficult. Currently one can carry a donor card - should we be forced to carry an opt-out card? What if the government were to say "We need more donors - let's make the opt-out process more difficult"? Opting in is easy for those who want to, it encourages people to do good. But how long, under an opt-out system, would it be before the authorities said "Here's a 20-page form to fill out, write an essay on why you want to selfishly keep your own organs, and payment is £650. Postal orders only."

But my main concern is this: if organ harvesting (because that's what it would be under that system, rather than donation) becomes mandatory, then we as a society have taken a step down a slippery slope towards seeing humans as commodities, as things that can be broken down for spares. And that's a bad thing.

 

[Scorpianhead]

Yes and anyone who does not is a complete asshole and deserves to have his/her organs taken when h/she dies.

 

[Arehexes]

Yes and anyone who does not is a complete asshole and deserves to have his/her organs taken when h/she dies.

Gee so from your point it's, do good and give organs and feel good about it or don't give your organs but lose them anyway. So you just want to force everyone to give them up then.

 

[templargunman]

I don't know why you said mandatory instead of opt-out. Of course they shouldn't be mandatory, this isn't North Korea, but there's no reason it shouldn't be opt-out. If it's such a problem make it so the DMV would ask if you'd like to opt out and if you had a problem you'd say yes. Opt-in now means that in most cities (some more liberal areas have people working at the DMV who will ask to help remind people) people have to request becoming an organ donor. Requesting that is pretty easy for a 16 year old who just passed their driving test to forget.

 

[Kair]

It is wrong that organ donation requires registration.

The very least, you should register to not donate organs. That would mean only the dicks would not donate organs.

 

[KosherKrackers]

Actually they can't take them when you're dead.

Braindeath, or imminent death while still alive due to machines is the state at which they harvest them.

I was fully in support of organ donation, until I found that out when my mother had a brain haemorage, my sister was 14 at the time and didn't want her wheeled out on a ventilator only to be cut up and then shut down elsewhere.

I can't speak for everyone, nor do I intend to, but I, alongside my sister, wanted to be there when the machines were shut off, which could not be done if we'd chosen to go for organ donation, and I think it's ridiculous to expect any family to have that decision forced on them, IE. by mandatory donation.

 

[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."

I don't know if you are familiar with the whole concept of quotes, but generally when you use a quote you have to actually quote what the person said, not make up your own interpretation of the wording. Like I said before, I am only putting forward my opinion, if that opinion is one that is generally shared by the population then I would assume that means it is a valid opinion, if not I am open to other reasoning but so far all you have done is isolate parts of my reasoning and attempt to discredit them in something that I can only assume is an attempt at humour. But going from one of your previous arguments how exactly do you think these issues should be handled?

Lets take murder as an example, I think the murder of other people (in general not for all specific cases) is wrong. Therefore I think that it is not good. But as you pointed out good is a subjective term and I shouldn't "force [my] ideals upon others". So what do you think should happen in this case, I keep quiet about my opinion and those that think murder is morally correct should be able to kill anyone they want?

Because the taking of someone else's life is totally the same thing.

 

[Mavinchious Maximus]

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?

Because im greedy and want to become a zombie one day. Everyone knows you need organs to become a zombie. duh

otherwise, im not agreeing to anything until i see money, i don't care if little Kenny is dying they have to make it worth while for me.

 

[Vault101]

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

1. Im sorry I dont quite understand the conection your making to 3rd world countries, from what I can see this is an entirely different issue

2. so are you talking about the fact that your denying somone the gift of life a "screw you"?, thats not being whimsical or cool, thats just being a dick, its one thing to go out with a bang or insult the government or whatever you feel the need to hate, its another thing to laugh at the fact "I COULD save somones life, but screw the world! so no...hehehehe ho ho ho"

In response to 1:
The point was I can't really feel bad when little billy can't make it without a new kidney but besides that has the best medical treatment; while other countries as a whole can barely get food/water. Or maybe I'm off my rocker again, I don't know anymore

In response to 2:
Yep that's what I'm talking about plain and simple it's one big screw you to the world. But I am not doing it to be "whimsical or cool" it's just what I believe and how I want to live my life. Thanks though it feels good to be called a dick, and how is me hating man kind in general any different from me hating the government? It's my protest on how screwed up man kind has gotten.

ok then

1. seperate issue, we cant fix all the worlds problems at once, and really if you have any issue simply pointing back to starving children in Africa isnt going to solve anything

2. this one actually gets me a little emotional so I'm going into full on rant mode here (as a warning)

for fucks sake mankind is not evil

no we arnt

theres just alot of us and most of us are good people jsut trying to get by, Id say at worst most of us can be apathetic

and "how fucked up mankind has become'? seriously? have we ever been LESS fucked up? this thing you called "fucked up" its called human nature

and It really reall fucking pisses me off the amount of people sitting on their high hoarse and talking about how evil man is, and so they take it as an excuse to be apathetic...or jsut plain sociopathic..the VERY THING they complain about

to deny a normal or even good everyday human being the gift of life because "I hate everyone because the worlds fucked up" THATS fucked up...in other words hypocritical

 

[A Free Man]

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."

I don't know if you are familiar with the whole concept of quotes, but generally when you use a quote you have to actually quote what the person said, not make up your own interpretation of the wording. Like I said before, I am only putting forward my opinion, if that opinion is one that is generally shared by the population then I would assume that means it is a valid opinion, if not I am open to other reasoning but so far all you have done is isolate parts of my reasoning and attempt to discredit them in something that I can only assume is an attempt at humour. But going from one of your previous arguments how exactly do you think these issues should be handled?

Lets take murder as an example, I think the murder of other people (in general not for all specific cases) is wrong. Therefore I think that it is not good. But as you pointed out good is a subjective term and I shouldn't "force [my] ideals upon others". So what do you think should happen in this case, I keep quiet about my opinion and those that think murder is morally correct should be able to kill anyone they want?

Because the taking of someone else's life is totally the same thing.

Oh I didn't realise that not forcing morals on people didn't apply when they are your morals over mine. In this theoretical argument they are essentially exactly the same thing. Both are opinions on the way human beings should act in general that have multiple points of view on the issue, which makes them both morals. But the ones that you agree with are obviously not to be taken into consideration because they are what? Beyond question?

 

[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."

I don't know if you are familiar with the whole concept of quotes, but generally when you use a quote you have to actually quote what the person said, not make up your own interpretation of the wording. Like I said before, I am only putting forward my opinion, if that opinion is one that is generally shared by the population then I would assume that means it is a valid opinion, if not I am open to other reasoning but so far all you have done is isolate parts of my reasoning and attempt to discredit them in something that I can only assume is an attempt at humour. But going from one of your previous arguments how exactly do you think these issues should be handled?

Lets take murder as an example, I think the murder of other people (in general not for all specific cases) is wrong. Therefore I think that it is not good. But as you pointed out good is a subjective term and I shouldn't "force [my] ideals upon others". So what do you think should happen in this case, I keep quiet about my opinion and those that think murder is morally correct should be able to kill anyone they want?

Because the taking of someone else's life is totally the same thing.

Oh I didn't realise that not forcing morals on people didn't apply when they are your morals over mine. In this theoretical argument they are essentially exactly the same thing. Both are opinions on the way human beings should act in general that have multiple points of view on the issue, which makes them both morals. But the ones that you agree with are obviously not to be taken into consideration because they are what? Beyond question?

Because one is taking the life of another. The other is an issue of charity. One, if acceptable would lead to the falling apart of the world, as people murder everyone. The other is an issue of donation. One is the base right to existence, without which all other debates would be pointless, as we'd be dead. The other is a personal choice that harms no one.

If you fail to see how the two cannot compare, we are done here, I'm afraid.

 

[Shio]

Actually they can't take them when you're dead.

Braindeath, or imminent death while still alive due to machines is the state at which they harvest them.

No. They can and do take them after your death, so long as it is done soon enough for the organs to not have been ruined. Most organs are taken this way.

 

[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

1. Im sorry I dont quite understand the conection your making to 3rd world countries, from what I can see this is an entirely different issue

2. so are you talking about the fact that your denying somone the gift of life a "screw you"?, thats not being whimsical or cool, thats just being a dick, its one thing to go out with a bang or insult the government or whatever you feel the need to hate, its another thing to laugh at the fact "I COULD save somones life, but screw the world! so no...hehehehe ho ho ho"

In response to 1:
The point was I can't really feel bad when little billy can't make it without a new kidney but besides that has the best medical treatment; while other countries as a whole can barely get food/water. Or maybe I'm off my rocker again, I don't know anymore

In response to 2:
Yep that's what I'm talking about plain and simple it's one big screw you to the world. But I am not doing it to be "whimsical or cool" it's just what I believe and how I want to live my life. Thanks though it feels good to be called a dick, and how is me hating man kind in general any different from me hating the government? It's my protest on how screwed up man kind has gotten.

ok then

1. seperate issue, we cant fix all the worlds problems at once, and really if you have any issue simply pointing back to starving children in Africa isnt going to solve anything

2. this one actually gets me a little emotional so I'm going into full on rant mode here (as a warning)

for fucks sake mankind is not evil

no we arnt

theres just alot of us and most of us are good people jsut trying to get by, Id say at worst most of us can be apathetic

and "how fucked up mankind has become'? seriously? have we ever been LESS fucked up? this thing you called "fucked up" its called human nature

and It really reall fucking pisses me off the amount of people sitting on their high hoarse and talking about how evil man is, and so they take it as an excuse to be apathetic...or jsut plain sociopathic..the VERY THING they complain about

to deny a normal or even good everyday human being the gift of life because "I hate everyone because the worlds fucked up" THATS fucked up...in other words hypocritical

Ok I'll let number 1 go then.

But lets get one thing straight, I am not on a high horse nor do I think I'm better for my choice (When I say man kind I include myself because my choices are selfish but that is a part human nature). I personally haven't denied anyone the gift of life because they were born nor can I since I can't give birth for being a male (you are thinking of abortion). Besides why give someone a gift of life because they choice to screw themselves up to the point where they need a new organ (and I'm not including those who are sick or terminally ill, that is in no why their fault). I could care less if you don't agree with me I gave my thoughts on the subject, and I'm not going to rant to someone on a computer. Besides what right do you have for making people have to give their organs (and the whole opt-out thing could be a problem when regulations make it hard to "opt-out"), it is their choice what they do with their body and they shouldn't have to go "Yeah let me opt out of giving away my organs". Only you have a say in what happens to your body, makes me sick when people want others to conform to what they feel is the right thing to do.

 

[Aur0ra145]

Of course it shouldn't be mandatory. Donating organs is a good thing, no question about it, but I have a few major objections to it:

1 - It's my body, not the government's. At the risk of sounding like one of the vast horde of paranoid nutcases, our governments already control so much of our lives, it isn't right for them to also decree the disposition of our bodies after death.

2 - Donating should be a choice to do a good thing for other people. If donation becomes mandatory... well, for a start it's not donation any more, it's just harvesting. And secondly, it becomes just "this is what happens after death", rather than something a person can be proud of.

3 - Opt-in gives people the choice. Opt-out makes the choice difficult. Currently one can carry a donor card - should we be forced to carry an opt-out card? What if the government were to say "We need more donors - let's make the opt-out process more difficult"? Opting in is easy for those who want to, it encourages people to do good. But how long, under an opt-out system, would it be before the authorities said "Here's a 20-page form to fill out, write an essay on why you want to selfishly keep your own organs, and payment is £650. Postal orders only."

But my main concern is this: if organ harvesting (because that's what it would be under that system, rather than donation) becomes mandatory, then we as a society have taken a step down a slippery slope towards seeing humans as commodities, as things that can be broken down for spares. And that's a bad thing.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

You just saved me about 15 minutes to write an opinion. I totally agree with you.

 

[Lord Kloo]

I signed up to the organ donation register when applying for my provisional driving license and i think its a good thing to do, waste not, want not as I say.. Also I'm using it to make sure i don't wake up from a coma in a coffin..

OT: Should be opt in but with much more advertising and doctors (probably already do) should ask all patients in hospital who may have life threatening issues if they want to make a donation later on..