Organ doner - Presumed consent - WTF!?

[Skyrad 0]

I think its a great idea. If you don't want to be sliced up just say so, put your name on a register and thats it you're untouchable mate.
If you have to spend week after week on dialysis wards seeing what those people go through and others in need of heart and lungs and other organs, watching people die for want of what we burn and bury then maybe you might feel differently. I say lets do it. (Yes I'm on the donor register and the bone marrow register)

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[pop 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Come on people, do you really want your organs going to some loser (for free) who'll just waste them

It beats having organs not go to anyone at all.

Why do you hate the maggot's? And their 'children'? They need to eat and there just aren't enough government programs to feed them all.

Why do you hate the children?

I smoke pot too, but my shit isnt as strong as yours. What are you talking about?

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I smoke pot too, but my shit isnt as strong as yours. What are you talking about?

It's ok, the dope has slowed you down - I'll type slowly.

taking the organs deprive the grave scavengers of food they'd otherwise have. So, if a selfish human wants to transplant that to save another pointless human - it will result in taking that food source from maggots (i.e., mother nature).

another example of Man's greed at the expense of nature

certainly we can all agree that a few maggots have more right to live than some human who is likely over his carbon credits anyway

But, hey, some right wing fascists will always take the side of progress over the environment

(just to clarify - - for those that seem to take themselves so seriously as to miss the theme)

edit: this whole thread is about whether someone can decide on their own to do what they want with their body. It's so basic that the thread will just be a clash of people coming from a totally different starting point. It's a waste of time. What's right to do on a personal basis is beside the point. Yet that's what's being attacked consistently instead of the point about it being a choice or not (not the choice itself). So you all should be mocked.

Although, the parallels to the abortion debate (with the typical players in the reverse positions) is very interesting to watch.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[freethefly 6]

Quote

taking the organs deprive the grave scavengers

I can't help but to think of Marty Feldman as Igor in Young Frankenstein when he dropped the brain he was suppose to grab and in turn grabbed the abnormal brain. When asked whose brain it was after the monster went wacko, he says Abie Normal

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I think its a great idea. If you don't want to be sliced up just say so, put your name on a register and thats it you're untouchable mate.

right, both scenarios (presumed consent vs active consent) have means to designate if one doesn't want to be used under the default.....

Here's a serious question assuming consent is presumed rather than active:

When do we hit the point where family A sues family B because family B had someone refuse to be a donor and family A lost someone?

ftf - puttin' on the ritz

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Quote from the article:

Quote

Everyone should be seen as a potential organ donor on their death unless they expressly request not to be, England's chief medical officer says.

And I completely agree with what England's chief medical officer says.

Quote

How ridiculous. I think one of my biggest rights is to be buried intact and complete. I do not wish to be an organ doner.

Then you could expressly request not to be. My understanding is that very few people actually care what happens with their bodies after they die. But if you prefer to rotten and be eaten by slippery worms being intact and complete - you have that right.

Quote

Some may consider it selfish but I don't want to give after death. I find it disrespectful to the dead.

So you prefer showing "respect" to the dead against saving a life?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

What about people who die young who never even thought about making such a request and never got a chance to prevent it.

Well, if they never even thought about making such a request, then it should never ever be their concern.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[freethefly 6]

Quote

puttin' on the ritz

http://phattie.net/dawg_wavs/youngf/abbynrml.wav
http://www.moviewavs.com/0095461785/WAVS/Movies/Young_Frankenstein/the-ritz.wav

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Imagine with the DNA database, and the police-govt agencies-military being the only ones able to carry newer guns, deciding to profile people and "accidentally"kill someone because any of your royalty-wealthy-influental people or their relatives need organ replacement....very scary thought

Oh, that's easy. They don't even need to kill someone. Just kidnap him/her to Mexico, and replace the organ there, no questions asked. And it doesn't matter whether you signed up as a donor, or not :)

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

But if they can put any other parts on Ebay, then I am all for it... Part me out...

Then your family gonna get a lot of chargebacks because someone will buy your heart for $50K, but will only pay for UPS Ground shipping.

P.S. I'd like to try that weed too :)

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[freethefly 6]

Quote

P.S. I'd like to try that weed too

Come on, now, people. Puff puff pass

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[billvon 2,998]

>If someone does not want to donate, who are we to coerce them?

We should not. Anyone who expresses a wish to not donate should not be forced to. However, if they do not care enough to express a wish, we should go the avenue that saves lives.

Loss of a donor means that people die; in the US alone, someone dies every 90 minutes because they could not get donor organs in time. There's a good reason to err on the side of donation.

[Scoop 0]

I'm just wondering how old the oldest organ will be in the future. What if we have recipients re-donating

In the future: "This kidney has been in the family for years and dates back as far as the first gulf war son. Its pretty old but it still does the job nicely"

*puts serious hat back on*

I just think the option shouldn't automatically default to having yourself cut up and organs handed around like some kind of free for all. We are not public property, we are individuals.

Also whilst it is commented how many people are dying because of not having a donor think of how many people have been kept alive that should have died years ago thanks to medical advances. We can't help everyone and there has got to be a natural balance. Saying that, naturally if I or someone close to me needed an organ I'd want it available immediatly.

Imagine if you were in an accident and rushed to hospital. When you woke up you found out while they had you under the knife they removed a kidney and gave it to someone else. You don't NEED 2 after all and you hadn't stated you wouldn't donate so they assumed it would be OK. Would that be right?

[tetra316 0]

How about those that refuse to become organ donors will not be able receive an organ either. In other words if you will not allow your organs to save another's life after you are dead you should not be able to get an organ transplant but will be left to die.

Just a thought. How would those of you who do not want to donate feel about that?

[Royd 0]

Quote

So you prefer showing "respect" to the dead against saving a life?

As REMHWA said, ' This is the abortion debate turned on its head.'

Isn't it strange that a woman can use the,'It's my body' argument to destroy a potential life, but I am supposed to feel guilty when I use the same argument not to save an existing life, many, of whom, probably have not lived a life worthy of continuance.

I also find it quite ironic that guilt seems to be a very handy tool used by those who believe that moral law should be destroyed.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

How about those that refuse to become organ donors will not be able receive an organ either.

Excellent point. I'll second that.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[JackC 0]

Quote

How about those that refuse to become organ donors will not be able receive an organ either. In other words if you will not allow your organs to save another's life after you are dead you should not be able to get an organ transplant but will be left to die.

Just a thought. How would those of you who do not want to donate feel about that?

I think I'd be OK with that. The thought of recieving a donor organ isn't something I'd feel 100% happy about. I don't carry a donor card and I've got a DNR order so I guess I've put my money where my mouth is. If it was someone I cared about, I'd prefer to stand by whatever they decided. Although I hope I never have to test that theory.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Isn't it strange that a woman can use the,'It's my body' argument to destroy a potential life, but I am supposed to feel guilty when I use the same argument not to save an existing life, many, of whom, probably have not lived a life worthy of continuance.

Two reasons.
First is cost-benefit comparision. In the case of dead transplantation the benefits are obvious and almost immediate, and the costs are basically nothing (except for few individuals). It is completely different for abortion; the costs for "donor" are pretty high - nobody uses abortion just for fun - and the benefits are not so obvious, and definitely not immediate.

Second, your comparision is not correct. It would be the same if we state that nobody is allowed to be excluded from the donor list. However it is not the case. It was said that by default everyone should be included in the donor list (because it is good for society), but everyone who does not want to, should be excluded. If they say the same for abortion - i.e. by default no one should do abortion (because it is good for society), but everyone who wants to do it, should be able to.

Quote

I also find it quite ironic that guilt seems to be a very handy tool used by those who believe that moral law should be destroyed.

There is no moral law. There is moral, but hopefully it is not a law.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[juanesky 0]

Quote

>If someone does not want to donate, who are we to coerce them?

We should not. Anyone who expresses a wish to not donate should not be forced to. However, if they do not care enough to express a wish, we should go the avenue that saves lives.

Loss of a donor means that people die; in the US alone, someone dies every 90 minutes because they could not get donor organs in time. There's a good reason to err on the side of donation.

And then again, the invasive procedure should be the request, not the other way around. It is already in place in the US, you just have to tell the people at the DMV to plave "donor" on your license. It's quite easy, really!

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[juanesky 0]

Quote

Quote

Isn't it strange that a woman can use the,'It's my body' argument to destroy a potential life, but I am supposed to feel guilty when I use the same argument not to save an existing life, many, of whom, probably have not lived a life worthy of continuance.

Two reasons.
First is cost-benefit comparision. In the case of dead transplantation the benefits are obvious and almost immediate, and the costs are basically nothing (except for few individuals). It is completely different for abortion; the costs for "donor" are pretty high - nobody uses abortion just for fun - and the benefits are not so obvious, and definitely not immediate.

Second, your comparision is not correct. It would be the same if we state that nobody is allowed to be excluded from the donor list. However it is not the case. It was said that by default everyone should be included in the donor list (because it is good for society), but everyone who does not want to, should be excluded. If they say the same for abortion - i.e. by default no one should do abortion (because it is good for society), but everyone who wants to do it, should be able to.

Quote

I also find it quite ironic that guilt seems to be a very handy tool used by those who believe that moral law should be destroyed.

There is no moral law. There is moral, but hopefully it is not a law.

I believe that no one uses abortion for fun is just not true. I agree with medical hazzards for newborns or mothers, or situations when the pregnancy is due to rape or a similar situation.

Then there are those situations where there is simple irresponsible actions, who tend to seek an easier route.

I would not like the law to be that unmarried-economically challenged women recieve government sanctioned abortions. Would you?

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[billvon 2,998]

>And then again, the invasive procedure should be the request, not the other way around.

I think when there is doubt we should err on the side of saving lives.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Then there are those situations where there is simple irresponsible actions, who tend to seek an easier route.

There is neither shared "irresponsible actions", nor "easier route". It is irresponsible action for the people who consider an embryon a human. But if the partners do not consider embryon a human, having unprotected sex is not irresponsible for them.

Regarding "easier route", do you also think that those who got syphilis during unprotected sex should also be banned from getting antibiotics as "easier route", and insted should live with the cosequences of their definitely irresponsible actions?

Quote

I would not like the law to be that unmarried-economically challenged women recieve government sanctioned abortions. Would you?

What do you mean by "government sanctioned"? Is it "forced by government to do abortion" or "goverment should not deny if they want to get abortion"?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[juanesky 0]

Quote

>And then again, the invasive procedure should be the request, not the other way around.

I think when there is doubt we should err on the side of saving lives.

Why not on the side of respecting a persons will to do with their bodies what they want to?

Now, if there was a law that made everyone responsible for saving lives, and do whatever it takes once said possible donor is dead, then I would agree.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

And then again, the invasive procedure should be the request, not the other way around. It is already in place in the US, you just have to tell the people at the DMV to plave "donor" on your license. It's quite easy, really!

But only works if you're carrying your ID, and if the dot didn't fall off 3 years ago. Since Bush/Feinstein, err, I mean al Queda hasn't yet forced us to walk around with REAL ID yet, I often do not have it on me.

That said, a system that presumes people are donors unless they opt out probably will frequently ignore the wishes (and yes, rights) of the more selfish to die in vain.

[juanesky 0]

Quote

There is neither shared "irresponsible actions", nor "easier route". It is irresponsible action for the people who consider an embryon a human. But if the partners do not consider embryon a human, having unprotected sex is not irresponsible for them.

Ok, we should consider the embryo "simian" or whatever designation you want (please insert here your preference)in nature Noted.

You will be ok, with promiscuous men and women, who may or maynot have diseases, spreading them with unprotected sex, and not be responsible for the consecuences of their actions (getting infected-pregnant)? You have kids? hope you would not mind them becoming porn stars would you? as Long as they take precautions right?

Quote

Regarding "easier route", do you also think that those who got syphilis during unprotected sex should also be banned from getting antibiotics as "easier route", and insted should live with the cosequences of their definitely irresponsible actions?

I am not talking about denying medications, or procedures, as long as they want to consent to them. (there is a law that if unconcious a person is giving implied consent).

Quote

What do you mean by "government sanctioned"? Is it "forced by government to do abortion" or "goverment should not deny if they want to get abortion"?

Well, put it this way, a single mother of 2, goes to get treatment on her 3rd pregnancy, and she has to undertake a government sanctioned abortion, because she live in welfare, and she has no means to raise another kid. Is this clear enough?

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon