Should organ donation be manditory?
- Thread starter Vault101
- Start date
No part.Damura said:
Your family does not have the right, once you are dead, to hoard your organs whilst other people may need them for transplants to keep them alive.
Obviously, if a member of your family needs a transplant, they should get first service, but otherwise they have no use for the organs so they might as well revert to the government to be distributed to those who need them.
I don't believe it should be opt-out. And I'm not an organ donor, either. I can't donate my organs, as I can't donate my blood, but I'd probably opt-out regardless.
My reasons are probably ill-founded, but I'd have a real fear of doctors losing interest in keeping me alive should they find out I'm a donor. I know that as a medic, I'd be tempted to think in terms of the 'greater good', and let one man die to save several others. It's terrible, but it's something I'd at least think, and I'm fairly sure someone else would, too. In an opt-out system, I could be reasonably confident that any patient under my care would be a potential donor, so I'd be fairly confident that most suitable patients would be eligible.
I also note that organs aren't actually harvested when someone is *dead*. They have to be in a state of 'inactivity' for a persistent period, and declared 'vegetative'. This state has been misdiagnosed - not often, but it *has* happened.
Now, would I expect organs in return? A difficult question. It's moot in some ways, as I can't donate in the first place, but if that weren't the case, would I still have the right to organs? I'd say I'd have a right to any free organs (though perhaps not the same right as someone with equal survival chances who'd opted-in), but I wouldn't harangue individuals to give up their organs for my behalf.
My reasons are probably ill-founded, but I'd have a real fear of doctors losing interest in keeping me alive should they find out I'm a donor. I know that as a medic, I'd be tempted to think in terms of the 'greater good', and let one man die to save several others. It's terrible, but it's something I'd at least think, and I'm fairly sure someone else would, too. In an opt-out system, I could be reasonably confident that any patient under my care would be a potential donor, so I'd be fairly confident that most suitable patients would be eligible.
I also note that organs aren't actually harvested when someone is *dead*. They have to be in a state of 'inactivity' for a persistent period, and declared 'vegetative'. This state has been misdiagnosed - not often, but it *has* happened.
Now, would I expect organs in return? A difficult question. It's moot in some ways, as I can't donate in the first place, but if that weren't the case, would I still have the right to organs? I'd say I'd have a right to any free organs (though perhaps not the same right as someone with equal survival chances who'd opted-in), but I wouldn't harangue individuals to give up their organs for my behalf.
So I interpreted your post correctly the entire time? Fantastic.TheEndlessSleep said:
Anyway, now that we're on the same page (I hope..)
There's a lot of problems with this. First, it assumes that the Government is in the best position to make decisions about who gets what organs. Who says? A lot of people don't have the level of respect for the government that you seem to have and that this idea demands.
Second, the only way it will work is if the government keeps the body as soon as it is reported. The family then has to go through a whole process just to announce their claim on an organ if they need one. They won't get to see the body for weeks because they'd need to do testing to see if there's any problems with the body, check against any claim a family has made (which would be difficult for them to organise so early since they've obviously just lost someone they loved) and then they would have to check against the persons last will and then harvest organs for themselves before letting the family have it.
What if there's two people in the family that need the same organ? How the hell are they supposed to determine that? Does the government decide? It may require some long legal process to decide.. can the body even survive that long? In the meantime there's still no burial or cremation or whatever because the government is waiting for the dust to settle so it can take as much as it can from your corpse.
Beliefs/funeral rites or whatever. No one really wants to bury bits and pieces of their friends and family. And that's all that's going to be left over. Internal organs, eyes, etc. Arms and stuff could go to science? Isn't most of the human body useable? To have the body taken against your wishes, pulled apart and then sewed back together and handed back to you in time for the funeral is offensive.
Since the government has to claim the body first, the family has to actually go out of their way to make their wishes clear. That's bullshit.
I think you underestimate just how complex something like this could get. Also, back to my first point, why should the government get to decide what to do with the organs? They don't have the right to that. Many would argue that they aren't in any position at all to make the right decisions regarding who gets organs. They have their own 'lists' or 'queues' or whatever but a lot of people don't agree with them.
I think that organ donation should be encouraged but to presume over other people on a matter like this is just a disgrace. I realise that a lot of people could be spared from a great deal of suffering is there was some mandatory organ harvest... but this kind of freedom is more important. Bringing this idea into action would deeply disturb a lot of people.
What do you mean? Like you might need it in the afterlife? What the hell for?Brown Cap said:
That'd be interesting... end up going to heaven and half of the souls there are mal-formed fetuses and cripples and anyone that any number of people that may have lost a limb in life...
I can see while you're alive it being opt in, like donating a kidney. Other than that i would say it should be opt out if you don't want to, for whatever reason.
While it would greatly increase the chances of those waiting on the transplant list, I would say no. Some people have valid reasons for not wanting their organs donated so it should be up to each person to make the choice for themselves. There are some things that people just aren't comfortable with even though it may seem illogical to someone else.
For example, I've consented to organ donation but I've also made it explicitly clear that my corpse is not to be used for science.
Still, people should research it before they make certain assumptions in order to avoid misconceptions. Like the belief that the doctors won't work as hard to save your life if you're an organ donor. That one I can tell you from experience is a lie, or at least it was at the hospital I was in. Otherwise I'd be in a nice little urn stuck in a wall next to my grandparents at the cemetery on the outskirts of the city.
For example, I've consented to organ donation but I've also made it explicitly clear that my corpse is not to be used for science.
Still, people should research it before they make certain assumptions in order to avoid misconceptions. Like the belief that the doctors won't work as hard to save your life if you're an organ donor. That one I can tell you from experience is a lie, or at least it was at the hospital I was in. Otherwise I'd be in a nice little urn stuck in a wall next to my grandparents at the cemetery on the outskirts of the city.
I'm sure there are good doctors who heartily believe their first priority is to save the living, and only use organ donation as a potential 'plan B' to try and salvage *something* out of a death. However, I can't stop thinking that, put in the doctor's position, I'd be tempted to let one person die to save several others. Also, I don't know how things work in your part of the world, but here (in the UK), the medics treating you aren't told whether you're a donor. The opt-in system means they assume you aren't. But an opt-out system suddenly changes that.shewolf51 said:
It's moot for me, anyway, as I plain can't donate. But if I could, I'd still find it hard to shake that suspicion.
Even removing spirituality and personal beliefs from the picture there are some very practical reasons why some people shouldn't donate their organs, such as an underlying health problem. For this same reason I'm a bit uncomfortable about people automatically being an organ donor on their driver's license.
I do think when you get your drivers license you should be asked whether you want to be a donor or not, rather than leaving it up to chance that someone notices this on their license and fills it out.
I do think when you get your drivers license you should be asked whether you want to be a donor or not, rather than leaving it up to chance that someone notices this on their license and fills it out.
Well, it's mostly because I would prefer that the priority for my corpse be for organ donation unless absolutely nothing is usable. Also, until I find out if there are any frat boys in existence on a medical school campus I don't want to run the risk of being used for a prank of some sort. That last part is illogical, I know but it's just temporary until I do more research on what exactly would happen to me if my body were given to science.Damura said:
Yeah, I can see your point. Especially if the person's chance of living was nearly non-existent. I'm just saying that in my experience it was a lie. It could also have been that I was in a teaching hospital so the patient living is generally the preferred outcome.Bosola said:
Here in Canada the doctors aren't generally told if you're an organ donor or not but one little check inside of my wallet and they would have easily been able to find my organ donor card.