Organ Donation

Discussion in 'Opinions, Beliefs, & Points of View' started by Twocky61, Jun 1, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Twocky61

    Twocky61 Banned Member

    Here in the uk we have to register to donate organs after death but your relatives can over-ride your wishes so I believe we should have an opt-out system so it is automatically assumed your organs are for transplant unless you have expressly requested not to have then transplanted before hand

    What do you all think?
  2. Hatshepsut

    Hatshepsut Guest

    As for doing it in the USA, thumbs down. I won't presume to tell the British what policy they should have.

    Receiving an organ is a great privilege, not a right or default. Most people with failing organs are not eligible for transplants. You need to be sick enough that only a transplant will save your life, yet healthy and young enough to survive the operation. The medical team must determine that, mentally and physically, you will be able to cooperate in the severe regimen of self-care and drugs that you will follow the rest of your life. Then, the histologically matched organ must become available from a donor at the right time. Then, for American patients, you must have the money, or an insurance plan that covers it. Transplantation is not included in poverty health care or in the charity system as a general rule, although some exceptions are made for minors. In other words, a lot of luck, and getting into a deserving social category.

    The thing about "opt-out" systems is that it's always difficult to opt out, with some lengthy rigamarole you must go through. This is by design, to minimize the number opting out.

    I have nothing against donating organs, for those who wish to do so. It's easy to sign a donor card.
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2014
  3. Perfect Melancholy

    Perfect Melancholy SF Friend

    Whilst being a donor card holder myself (I live in the uk) as much as an opt out system would create more donors the issue rises with religious choice do those who's religion forbids such things automatically get opted out etc etc, I think there would be to much red tape, the money that could be used to create an opt out system would be better targeted at those whom could potentially be a donor v
  4. Concrete_Angel

    Concrete_Angel Forum Buddy

    That's what there suggesting to do in Wales I studied this as part of my course and I am for this as this will receive more organ donations which in turn will save more lives. There are quite a shortage of heart donations compared to kidney and liver etc so this may increase it. However there are some against such as if you die even if your family didn't want your organs to be donated they have no say the government can take them anyway. But I am for it as it can't do any worse can it?
  5. justMe7

    justMe7 Well-Known Member

    With all due respect, the moment you forget that some people and some cultures look at life differently is the moment you neglect a different attitude towards life. If you want to donate and help people who are in life threatening situations by donating portions of your body, by all means. You opt into these plans. As a society it is reckless and sets a dangerous precedent to allow a default ownership of your body to this degree. It's a choice to help people, to help society and those out of society. But that has to be a conscious choice. Not some scheme that takes advantage of people unawareness or their "in the moment" inability to make a choice on how they want their body to be treated once they die.

    Let's be sorta clear.. we're sort of in this together. But that doesn't mean this "we" understanding allows any ownership of someones mind, body, and soul(if you believe in such a thing) by a group of people or governmental body. I'm sure Ill get flack from people. Keep in mind donating organs is a tremendously respectful gift. But the conscious choice to make that possibility a reality has to be done appropriately. And flat out default organ recycling is reckless in many ways.

    And as far as your family being able to override your choice, there should be an extra security statement to negate any influence from the immediate family if they wish to override your primary choice of not donating. Effectively giving them the power of control on the majority of issues, but not specific key issues. Your life, your choice. That comes before anyone elses opinion, law or what have you. That's called respecting life.

    I understand what you're saying, but in my opinion you are thinking big picture at the expense of the individual. Ends justify the means sorta thing. To maintain a consistent connection to true freedom, sometimes we have to endure extremely deadly hardships that hold us back. That's the price of not being automated, but instead of being in control of our lives and making the choices to contribute. Versus being part of a spreadsheet, which is inevitably what happens when you have a persistent situation happening. Atleast with a conscious choice, the battle is more about convincing people, rather than skipping the connective communication hurdle that is vital to our communities. And ultimately, our existence.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 2, 2014
  6. Event_Horizon

    Event_Horizon SF Supporter

    Not enough of this question is defined to have a debate about it. If you mean assume every one who dies is on the donors list unless they opt out. Yeah sure, on the surface that sounds awesome. Right up until you ask the question. At what age do you get informed you can opt out? How would you know you had the option and how would everyone get taught what their rights are on it? I really do find presumed consent a rather alarming prospect. There are so many ethical issues as well to consider. Who gets final say being among them? A much better way forward would simply be to send out a mass opt in forms. Maybe when you receive your national insurance card, or are registered to vote. Consent should not just be assumed.

    If you disagree with me sadly you can't as you did not opt out when you had the option and you binned the leaflet telling you about your rights to disagree with me along with the junk mail. I have assumed you entirely agree with what I am saying. All disagreement will go ignored as you already agreed by not, not agreeing. See how that works...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.