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.
Okay, yeah fair enough I see your point there, that makes sense. I just never will get my head round the mentality that people could essentially want someone to die *because* for whatever personal reason, they chose not to go on the list. But I do understand the shortage of organs, and it is a difficult one. I'm sure my feelings will change on the matter as I learn more, and experience more though.
You make some valid points Freckles that have given me cause to think on the matter further (shall come back later after thinking about it).
I don't *think* anyone said that those who had opted out would be denied an organ, or blood, or left to suffer if a suitable organ became available for them, simply that it would be ONE factor (amongst the many pre-existing factors) in determining where a particular organ will go.
And, to reiterate, it is estimated that an opt in scheme will result in an additional NINE transplants per annum. That's a long way off some kind of mass body-parts industry.
Thanks, I think I'm trying to figure out my own feeling on it too. To be honest I've never really given organ donation much thought until now... don't like to think about death and stuff. But it's more the choice side of things, and that while donating is a wonderful gift, to give someone the chance to live, a gift should be chosen and given... not presumed... makes someone the 'baddie' when they say they don't want to do it... that's the main point - I went off at a tangent, lol.
Yeah I don't think anyone said that, think I just picked up on the idea people would look down on those who didn't want to donate, and see the people on the donor list as 'more deserving' for having their lives saved.... I just don't like that concept... find it unsettling. Nobody's more worthy than anyone else... but I think I probably read more into things than was there. It is a puzzle - though aren't they working on growing organs? Know it must take a long time, but who knows.. maybe that'll take off and help solve the problem - we can hope!
Of course it's not good, but there aren't many kinds of mistakes that end up saving someone's life!
That's not the point though. The point is that someone's wishes, and someone's body is being violated against their express wishes. Why bother treating the dead with any respect at all, I mean, they don't know, they can't feel anything. Let's just mass burial and/or mass cremation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heidi Tiger
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.
1. Assets are an entirely different thing to your body.
2. The government can own my body when it takes responsibility for the entirety or its life and death. Currently, when I die my funeral and other arrangements will be left to my family, not the government.
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...
^ This.
To put it in perspective a bit as well, I cannot donate blood because of the medications I am on. I also had to have lots of other people's blood when I had a car accident. Going by the rules where you can't get if you don't give, I would be dead.
Aint nobody got time for that.
The world is just illusion always trying to change me.
You will find wonder wherever you can, and spread joy whenever you are able.
I felt emotions of gentleness and pleasure, that had long appeared dead, divide within me. - Frankenstein.
In the hospital I worked at in malawi if you needed blood you had to replace what you used by having a family member donate. If you really had no one and desperately needed the blood you would still get it though. Obviously that's far from ideal but they had to work with what they had which was a serious shortage of blood and people who could die without it (much like the organ shortage we have). I'm not saying at all that I think this should be the case, even with an 'opt out' system I don't think donation should bump you up the recipient list. To be honest they are two completely separate issues though.
A question not meant to be rude or disrespectful of people's views...to those who have objections to the 'opt out' system: do you think your problems with it are serious enough to let someone die? because that is essentially what it comes down to.
Always seem to get things just that little bit wrong.
"don't wish, don't start, wishing only wounds the heart"
A question not meant to be rude or disrespectful of people's views...to those who have objections to the 'opt out' system: do you think your problems with it are serious enough to let someone die? because that is essentially what it comes down to.
Yes. To violate someone's body who has expressly opted-out is abhorrent. Much, much worse in my mind than to not take an organ when someone has said it is fine to do so. To me, it has nothing to do with the person who may or may not receive the organ, it is about a system that will never be fool-proof. We cannot save everyone, nor do I think we should.
Again, people will say "but you're dead so you don't know or care". I ask, why bother treating the dead with any respect at all, you're dead so you don't know or care.
I think this is an excellent idea. I hope the rest of the UK and Ireland follows suit. As someone said previously, Ireland and the UK have a shared organ donation system. At the moment, I *think* little old Ireland actually gives more than it receives, despite our much smaller population.
If people feel very strongly against organ donation, they will opt out. Yes there's a very small chance of error in maintaining the register, but if that means that a CF child gets a heart lung transplant 'in error' and gets to see their twenties when they never thought they would, the risk is worth it to me. I highly doubt my organs will be of any use to anyone when I die, but if they are, they are very welcome to take every last bit of me that they can use. It'll be no use to me or my family then.
I don't agree with the idea that if you can't give, you can't receive. But I think those who are against donating their organs, should strongly think about if they or a loved one needed an organ. Would they refuse the donation on the basis that they're just not comfortable giving? Maybe they should, but I doubt they would. Strong words I know, but it's something I feel strongly about. I take life over posthumous bodily integrity or autonomy every time (provided of course that the donor hasn't opted out or the family strongly disagree).
Be kind - everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle
Yes. To violate someone's body who has expressly opted-out is abhorrent. Much, much worse in my mind than to not take an organ when someone has said it is fine to do so. To me, it has nothing to do with the person who may or may not receive the organ, it is about a system that will never be fool-proof. We cannot save everyone, nor do I think we should.
Again, people will say "but you're dead so you don't know or care". I ask, why bother treating the dead with any respect at all, you're dead so you don't know or care.
But that's irrelevant. If you opt out you opt out. We're talking about people who haven't opted out in an opt out system. I would never dream of refusing people the right to object.
Always seem to get things just that little bit wrong.
"don't wish, don't start, wishing only wounds the heart"
But that's irrelevant. If you opt out you opt out. We're talking about people who haven't opted out in an opt out system. I would never dream of refusing people the right to object.
No, I'm talking about a system that will never, ever be 100% correct and fool-proof. There WILL be cases when someone who has opted out gets their organs harvested, and until that is rectified an opt-out system should never be introduced.
You'd think it would be relatively simple, but the DWP and HMRC can't get day-to-day stuff right all the time. There is also the problem of checking someone's identity and ensuring they are on the excepted list.
Whether or not that error saves someone's life is completely irrelevant.
That is my main objection with such a system, along with my opinion that such a system should never be operated on a negative basis. It should be a positive choice rather than a negative one.
Again, people will say "but you're dead so you don't know or care". I ask, why bother treating the dead with any respect at all, you're dead so you don't know or care.
I think that there are two reasons for caring for the dead in the way we do - one is that people need to be buried hygienically so as not to endanger others/be all smelly (I don't know, but I assume?), the second is for the family who are still alive, who want to mourn. There's no higher reason why we should be respectful to dead (and as I mentioned earlier in the thread, this is pretty much the first time in human history we've been in a fortunate enough position to dictate what happens to us when we die).
Quote:
Originally Posted by The One Who
No, I'm talking about a system that will never, ever be 100% correct and fool-proof. There WILL be cases when someone who has opted out gets their organs harvested, and until that is rectified an opt-out system should never be introduced.
You'd think it would be relatively simple, but the DWP and HMRC can't get day-to-day stuff right all the time. There is also the problem of checking someone's identity and ensuring they are on the excepted list.
Whether or not that error saves someone's life is completely irrelevant.
That is my main objection with such a system, along with my opinion that such a system should never be operated on a negative basis. It should be a positive choice rather than a negative one.
So - I don't really understand why it is such a problem if people choose to not have their organs donated, but they end up being used; I don't see it as abhorrent. Indeed, it does happen already with family overriding the dead person's wishes, which if we're going down this line of argument, is also disrespectful).
I guess this is where I struggle with understanding your objection, I don't really understand the basis from which your opinion is based on (that's not to say that there isn't a basis - I'm absolutely 100% sure there is, Claire! I just don't understand it). Could you perhaps explain that a bit further?
I get that there's a slight issue insofar as "well, if it doesn't matter, why do we even bother having a donor register - why don't we just assume consent for everybody?" but that's not exactly the dystopian future we're looking at now.
I think that there are two reasons for caring for the dead in the way we do - one is that people need to be buried hygienically so as not to endanger others/be all smelly (I don't know, but I assume?), the second is for the family who are still alive, who want to mourn. There's no higher reason why we should be respectful to dead (and as I mentioned earlier in the thread, this is pretty much the first time in human history we've been in a fortunate enough position to dictate what happens to us when we die).
Mass cremation/graves?
Quote:
So - I don't really understand why it is such a problem if people choose to not have their organs donated, but they end up being used; I don't see it as abhorrent. Indeed, it does happen already with family overriding the dead person's wishes, which if we're going down this line of argument, is also disrespectful).
Firstly, I do not believe that a family member should be able to override the express wishes of the deceased, you won't get any disagreement about that.
But if someone has expressly and explicitly when to the effort of opting out, their organs should never be taken, ever. To me, it's not too dissimilar to rape, and the fact that they're dead makes no difference to me. The person has said no, and that has been ignored, whether willfully or not.
I think this is a good idea, but that's simply because I don't care what happens to my body when I die, I don't really care what happens to my family members bodies when they die (they aren't too fussed either) so if someone can make use of any body part then feel free in my opinion. I fully appreciate how other people would find this unsettling though.
I think it's a great idea, I got on the register the moment I got my driving licence and am pleased I did.
I think an opt out is much better for an opt in - if people don't want to donate then they can simply opt out, end of.
You don't have to be a monkey to recognize a banana!
