People looking for good reasons to donate can find them. People looking for good reasons not to donate can also find them. Better to leave the decision up to the people and not have state assuming decisions for them.
But people are still empowered to make their own decision. It's just that the default has changed. Anyone who cares enough to fill in a form can opt out. If they don't care enough to sign their name to a bit of paper, do they care enough to make that decision? That's what it all boils down to basically.
I am completely for this. If people really felt that strongly about it they can still opt out, so what is the problem. We need more organs to donate to people, so why keep going with an opt in service which obviously isn't working.
"Never be a spectator of unfairness or studpidity. The grave will supply plenty of time for silence." Christopher Hitchens
'When words fail, music speaks'
I am transsexual and homoromantic and proud to be.
Well then just let the gov can ban sugar and alcohol consumption since those are at the root of most illness. 1 in 7 people will get diabetes because they eat junk. Then they want new livers and eyes from corpses. We do everything backwards. We want all out little delights every day, and then we want expensive and dramatic fixes for ensuing problems when a little common senses and restraint would do much better. Organ specifics aside, every day the governments want to dictate more and more. They often seem to have a good reason and then they run off the rails.
I'm not sure how I feel about this decision, because I don't have enough information. As it's a "first" as far as I can tell, we don't know how it will pan out either. However it seems like an interesting trial run. I am for organ donation and I don't mind donating my organs once I have died but how this system will work out, I'm not sure. I sympathize with anybody who isn't sure about this or feels strongly against it at the moment as it does seem like a slightly mysterious change.
Some people seem to be assuming that the minute someone dies doctors will whip them off to surgery and have all their organs out regardless of their illness or their wishes. The reality is nothing remotely like this. It is very rare for someone to die in such a way that their organs have a chance of being useful. This is why presumed consent is needed - in the very rare occasion where organs could be harvested, it would slightly increase the chances of actually managing to get the organs.
Someone above quoted that experts estimate this new system would increase the amount of organ transplants by 9 a year. This isn't much at all! This means it is likely to affect fewer than nine people per year.
I think it is absolutely worth it.
My own opinion is that once you're dead, you're dead, so whatever the most useful thing to do with my corpse is, I'll go for it.
Sorry I haven't read through the whole thread yet so don't know if anyone's already said any of this... but my view is it's wrong. For starters a 'donation' is actually a voluntary gift ... it's something you choose to do. The second you're effectively forced to do something it's no longer a donation, it's a demand. It's like charities who have people collect with the money boxes, people choose to put in whatever they can spare... imagine for a moment everyone is set up to pay a certain amount each month from their bank account..... unless they opt out. It's theft!! Taking your money. And the only way they won't take it, is if you say you don't want to give to charity - but it guilt-trips you.... because to say you won't give to charity might say you don't care about starving children, neglected animals or whatever. So it's like 'hand over your money or feel like a bad person'. I know organ donation is different, and once you're gone you don't need your body anymore. But some people have medical reasons they can't donate, and others may have religious beliefs that require the body to stay intact! I know someone who was on the organ donation register and didn't know, and they've now removed themselves, and for all I know I might be on it. I'm sure there's a lot of people unaware they're signed up to something already.
I like the idea of free choice. Everyone's entitled to that. I'm all for doing good deeds, but the moment it's expected I'm not interested. It takes away the 'kind gesture'. It's a person's right to choose - and I know people would argue, yes but you can choose to opt out. You should never be put in in the first place. Partly because some people might not be aware of it, and who's to say if they put you on a register for that, they're not putting you on all sorts of other things you don't know you have the chance to opt out of?
Freewill and personal beliefs - two important things that shouldn't be ignored. Have those taken away from you what have you got left?
That's all I have at the moment, might give it some more thought...
^but you still have free choice - the choice to opt out. No one could make organ donation compulsory.
In my opinion, choice like this should always be done positively - that you choose to do something, rather than choosing not to.
There is also the very, very real problem of it being a government database that is holding this information. These are never one-hundred percent correct, and there will be mistakes made.
In my opinion, choice like this should always be done positively - that you choose to do something, rather than choosing not to.
There is also the very, very real problem of it being a government database that is holding this information. These are never one-hundred percent correct, and there will be mistakes made.
Of course it's not good, but there aren't many kinds of mistakes that end up saving someone's life!
Seeing as I have no religious affiliation and see the body just as biological components, I think this is a good idea. If you're dead your organs should be used to save others. Your dead. You don't need them, why should they just rot away when they can do good?
If anything, donation should be mandatory.
Everybody thought my grandfather's body was destroyed by the conditions he had, but they found he could still donate a couple of things when his time came and we took comfort in that. I signed the register on my 16th birthday.
If donation isn't mandatory, there needs to be a serious push for education surrounding organ donation, especially in schools and stuff.
If my little toenail can help someone when I'm gone, by all means have it. My personal beliefs are not connected to a physical body. And from a personal point of view, I spent a long, long time trying to destroy my body, so if I can reverse roles and maybe save someone's life with said body, I'm all for it.
Now I'll play your ghost as my ace, whenever I'm led astray.
But I am actually good, can't help it if we're tilted.
I'm in my right place, don't be a downer.
In my opinion, choice like this should always be done positively - that you choose to do something, rather than choosing not to.
There is also the very, very real problem of it being a government database that is holding this information. These are never one-hundred percent correct, and there will be mistakes made.
Agreed.
There are times to stay put, and what you want will come to you.
But there are times to go out into the world and find such a thing for yourself.
I aint no abacus but you can count on me.
In my opinion, choice like this should always be done positively - that you choose to do something, rather than choosing not to.
I agree with this - nothing should ever be 'presumed'. And it's so much worse for people to be seen to opt out - because then they'll be the 'selfish people' who don't want to help someone else live. They'll then have people having that attitude that I've noticed, that if you don't donate your organs, then if something happens to you, you shouldn't be offered an organ, you should be left to die for being selfish! .... and while we're on that, I wonder what people's views are on donating blood... say I don't donate blood, never do, and something happens to me and I need a blood transfusion - am I denied that blood because I've never donated blood? I'd think people would have a different view on that.... so why such a harsh view on people who don't donate organs? We shouldn't live in a world where we give to get. And if we do then that's quite a selfish way of living too.
I think people just have different views on donation, just like with anything else. And basically I just think it should be an opt in thing for everyone - but maybe with more encouragement and information etc.
I agree with this - nothing should ever be 'presumed'. And it's so much worse for people to be seen to opt out - because then they'll be the 'selfish people' who don't want to help someone else live. They'll then have people having that attitude that I've noticed, that if you don't donate your organs, then if something happens to you, you shouldn't be offered an organ, you should be left to die for being selfish! .... and while we're on that, I wonder what people's views are on donating blood... say I don't donate blood, never do, and something happens to me and I need a blood transfusion - am I denied that blood because I've never donated blood? I'd think people would have a different view on that.... so why such a harsh view on people who don't donate organs? We shouldn't live in a world where we give to get. And if we do then that's quite a selfish way of living too.
I think people just have different views on donation, just like with anything else. And basically I just think it should be an opt in thing for everyone - but maybe with more encouragement and information etc.
What I really don't understand though, is why someone opposed to organ donation would be willing to receive a donated organ. That makes no sense to me and is the ultimate in selfishness. I also don't see what's wrong with the principle of reciprocity, we have it in the tax and benefit system, so why not the health system. Blood is slightly different as there is not such a dire shortage, but in principle I wouldn't think it wrong to prioritise blood donors over those that could donate but chose not to.
What I really don't understand though, is why someone opposed to organ donation would be willing to receive a donated organ. That makes no sense to me and is the ultimate in selfishness. I also don't see what's wrong with the principle of reciprocity, we have it in the tax and benefit system, so why not the health system. Blood is slightly different as there is not such a dire shortage, but in principle I wouldn't think it wrong to prioritise blood donors over those that could donate but chose not to.
But there's also the possibility that someone might have either never thought about organ donation, or is opposed to it, because they feel weird about it or whatever, but then something happens to them and they receive an organ, saving their life, and maybe that's what changes their mind, and they choose to join the register afterwards..... but if they're discriminated against for not being on it in the first place, they'd be 'left to die', and their organs never would get used. It takes people different amounts of time, and different life experiences to make a decision like that, we're not all the same. To some people it would be an easy decision, a no-brainer - but not everybody thinks that way, and they shouldn't have to. And they shouldn't be bullied and punished for choosing what their beliefs are and what happens to *their* body, after all your body is *yours*, you were born with it, you die with it, and just like you choose what happens to your possessions after you die, you have even more right to choose what happens to your body.
Having an opt out system pressures people to make that difficult and very personal decision sooner than they feel comfortable.
But I definitely disagree about giving to get etc... making someone suffer because they've not donated blood, organs etc, seems a bit barbaric to me.. inhuman. If a life needs saving, everything should be done to save it, regardless of whether they're a donor or not.. if not it's discrimination... it's playing God.
But there's also the possibility that someone might have either never thought about organ donation, or is opposed to it, because they feel weird about it or whatever, but then something happens to them and they receive an organ, saving their life, and maybe that's what changes their mind, and they choose to join the register afterwards..... but if they're discriminated against for not being on it in the first place, they'd be 'left to die', and their organs never would get used. It takes people different amounts of time, and different life experiences to make a decision like that, we're not all the same. To some people it would be an easy decision, a no-brainer - but not everybody thinks that way, and they shouldn't have to. And they shouldn't be bullied and punished for choosing what their beliefs are and what happens to *their* body, after all your body is *yours*, you were born with it, you die with it, and just like you choose what happens to your possessions after you die, you have even more right to choose what happens to your body.
Having an opt out system pressures people to make that difficult and very personal decision sooner than they feel comfortable.
But I definitely disagree about giving to get etc... making someone suffer because they've not donated blood, organs etc, seems a bit barbaric to me.. inhuman. If a life needs saving, everything should be done to save it, regardless of whether they're a donor or not.. if not it's discrimination... it's playing God.
See we're coming at this from very different viewpoints. Beyond sentimental possessions, I don't think you should have a right to decide where your assets go after you die. I see nothing wrong with a 100% inheritance tax.
Also, organ donation involves discrimination inherently. There aren't enough organs to go round, so discriminatory policies are already in place. They discriminate against alcoholics, they discriminate against the elderly, they discriminate against those who are weak enough that a transplant might fail. Discriminating in favour of those who want to ensure more organs available for those in need would not be the only form of discrimination involved in getting a transplant.
See we're coming at this from very different viewpoints. Beyond sentimental possessions, I don't think you should have a right to decide where your assets go after you die. I see nothing wrong with a 100% inheritance tax.
Also, organ donation involves discrimination inherently. There aren't enough organs to go round, so discriminatory policies are already in place. They discriminate against alcoholics, they discriminate against the elderly, they discriminate against those who are weak enough that a transplant might fail. Discriminating in favour of those who want to ensure more organs available for those in need would not be the only form of discrimination involved in getting a transplant.
Yeah I definitely can't agree about the inheritance tax, but that's a whole other issue, lol - I think we're a good example of different opinions,
And true, there is already discrimination... but that's in people where they're weak, or elderly like you said, or in alcoholics ... so people where it probably wouldn't be successful. But if you have a young, 'healthy' person who never drinks a drop and looks after herself well, BUT is *not* on the donor register, why should you discriminate against her? A transplant may be very successful in her, and she could go on and live a happy long healthy life, ready to donate her organs later in life if she chooses to, as a result of her experience. Why deny her the chance to recover, and the right to live? Why let an otherwise 'healthy' person die, when there's even the slightest possibility they might change their mind, and be able to donate very healthy organs to other people. I just don't agree with deciding who should live and who should die - I think everything possible should be done to help everyone... so long as they want to live, nobody should decide they can't - especially if the only thing standing in their way is a bloody organ donor list and whether they're on it!
Yeah I definitely can't agree about the inheritance tax, but that's a whole other issue, lol - I think we're a good example of different opinions,
And true, there is already discrimination... but that's in people where they're weak, or elderly like you said, or in alcoholics ... so people where it probably wouldn't be successful. But if you have a young, 'healthy' person who never drinks a drop and looks after herself well, BUT is *not* on the donor register, why should you discriminate against her? A transplant may be very successful in her, and she could go on and live a happy long healthy life, ready to donate her organs later in life if she chooses to, as a result of her experience. Why deny her the chance to recover, and the right to live? Why let an otherwise 'healthy' person die, when there's even the slightest possibility they might change their mind, and be able to donate very healthy organs to other people. I just don't agree with deciding who should live and who should die - I think everything possible should be done to help everyone... so long as they want to live, nobody should decide they can't - especially if the only thing standing in their way is a bloody organ donor list and whether they're on it!
But with the organ donor register, it's not just as simple as giving them a chance and they might change their mind. Organs are so scarce that what it actually means is that other people are going to die to give them the chance that they might change their mind. I'd rather give that chance to those who have already made their minds up. Because then if it goes wrong and they die, then there are more organs in circulation for those that desperately need that chance.
