Organs to be taken without consent

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

When the government starts programs such as this where you have to opt-out it moves the onus onto us as individuals.

Personal responsibility. If one is really bothered about what happens to your body after you die then one should have made preparations for the event of ones death.

Quote

I can easily imagine this government proposing taxes and the like where you have to opt-out of them.

Maybe so but we're not talking about tax we're discussing the lives and deaths of people.

Quote

Secondly a number of people whose beliefs or preferences want them to be "whole" after death are likely to be violated in an automatic system as the inevitable loss of their opt-out will render them donors.

I don't doubt that this will happen on occasion even with the information not lost. Systems are only as infallible as the people using them. However, if we take that approach then we should all stop skydiving today because if you keep on jumping sooner or later you will have a mal.
The reality is one death is better than two.

Quote

A mixup of this nature would be very traumatic for the living relatives of such people.

I agree, but no more traumatic than the grief felt by the family of a potential recipient that never got the organ they needed. We already have an opt out schme in the NHS for patients who do not want CPR and advanced life support in the event of an arrest, it works well. If we can manage to do that around a peri-mortem event then why not this?

Quote

I also think that as Nerdgirl brought up artificial sources will become a "better" replacement in the medium term and would personally prefer to see development and effort put in that direction.

I agree, Nerdgirl brings up a good point. I would also like to see development and effort put into that direction as well as this policy put into place.

I have known many patients who were waiting for an organ and most of them died without getting one, their lives cut very short. While meanwhile the organs they needed were in the same building in the A&E ready to be harvested but time and time agin they were incinerated or buried by relatives to upset to make the decision at the time. This protocol would place responsibility on each and every one of us for the future of our body after our death. The problem is that people today often refuse to take responsibility for themselves. I say lets make it law.

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

[JackC 0]

Quote

The propsed system wouldn't take control over your body away from you.

The proposed system would make me have to actively retain control over my own body.

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

I'll rephrase: Unless I tell the person/organisation/charity/football team/book club/porn site different, they cannot help themselves to my stuff. Governments do it and I have to accept it. That doesn't mean I have to like it or that I'm not going to make my views known.

OK. And it makes no difference to you that in this situation A) it is something that is no longer useful to anyone except the organ transplant service, B) something that is potentially lifesaving and C) you can still withold your permission?

Do those factors have any impact at all on your stance?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Government intrudes into so many aspects of our lives, the one thing that we ought to retain control over, above all else, is our own darned bodies.

The propsed system wouldn't take control over your body away from you.

YES, it would. It is scary that you do not see that

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Skyrad 0]

Not when you can opt out.

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

[Shotgun 1]

So do we have complete control over our bodies right now? Can I have it put in my will that I want my torso to be preserved and mounted on my wall next to the longhorn skull, so that Rich can continue to enjoy my beauty?

Seriously, are we currently that free to choose what happens to our dead bodies?

[JackC 0]

Quote

OK. And it makes no difference to you that in this situation A) it is something that is no longer useful to anyone except the organ transplant service, B) something that is potentially lifesaving and C) you can still withold your permission?

Do those factors have any impact at all on your stance?

No. My current donor card is capable of dealing with all of those points. It does not need to be changed.

Sweden has a lower donor per million capita rate than the UK despite having an opt out system like that proposed. The US has a higher donor per capita rate than the UK and they have an opt in system like we have now. A new system may not be an improvement anyway.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Not when you can opt out.

Here is Iowa there was (for a while) an advertising tactic where unless you sent in a card to "opt out" you were billed for the service or product provided. That was deemed ilegal and now is treated as much. I feel this follows the same crappy path. Opt out or you are in. WTF man!

So, while we may not agree in the end to me, this tactic should scare the hell out of everyone.

Again for me, it is very hard to understand how anyone would see this as ok, regardless of the percieved benifits.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

So do we have complete control over our bodies right now? Can I have it put in my will that I want my torso to be preserved and mounted on my wall next to the longhorn skull, so that Rich can continue to enjoy my beauty?

Seriously, are we currently that free to choose what happens to our dead bodies?

Regardless of the fact that your post freeks the hell out of me , I see your point however, we are talking about a situtation where a government agency TAKES control of (insert anything here) by default. Hard for me to accept

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

It would become the property of the state. Oops.

Huh? Where?

In Washington State. I'm pretty sure my answer was a bit off though. What I said was in the absence of a will, property goes to the state. What I meant was in the absence of heirs, property goes to the state.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

A choice is already being made for the individual by default. I've pointed this out.

No choice is being made for any individual. What's happening now is that if there is no evidence of a choice, then there is no donation.

In other words, the hospital staff are choosing not to harvest viable organs. That's still a choice.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[livendive 8]

Quote

So do we have complete control over our bodies right now? Can I have it put in my will that I want my torso to be preserved and mounted on my wall next to the longhorn skull, so that Rich can continue to enjoy my beauty?

Seriously, are we currently that free to choose what happens to our dead bodies?

Erin plans to have me stuffed and put me out on the front porch with a motion-detector activated loudspeaker yelling, "GET THE HELL OFF OF MY LAWN!" Of course, she'd also be free to bring me into the house for other tasks if she feels so inclined.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

So do we have complete control over our bodies right now? Can I have it put in my will that I want my torso to be preserved and mounted on my wall next to the longhorn skull, so that Rich can continue to enjoy my beauty?

Seriously, are we currently that free to choose what happens to our dead bodies?

Regardless of the fact that your post freeks the hell out of me , I see your point however, we are talking about a situtation where a government agency TAKES control of (insert anything here) by default. Hard for me to accept

A - Have we even established that the government would be taking control of the bodies? Without any particular knowledge of the system, it seems to me that it would simply be one hospital transferring potentially life-saving tissue to another patient, whether they are at that hospital or another within reasonable distance. Would the government have control?

B - Can the government not already take control of your body if they decide they want to do an autopsy on you?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So do we have complete control over our bodies right now? Can I have it put in my will that I want my torso to be preserved and mounted on my wall next to the longhorn skull, so that Rich can continue to enjoy my beauty?

Seriously, are we currently that free to choose what happens to our dead bodies?

Regardless of the fact that your post freeks the hell out of me , I see your point however, we are talking about a situtation where a government agency TAKES control of (insert anything here) by default. Hard for me to accept

A - Have we even established that the government would be taking control of the bodies? Without any particular knowledge of the system, it seems to me that it would simply be one hospital transferring potentially life-saving tissue to another patient, whether they are at that hospital or another within reasonable distance. Would the government have control?Directly to your point? No, we not "established" this however, we are, after all, talking about government pushing this and more than likely controling it. Even IF, and that is a big IF the gov did not directly run it, it would be providing the rules to (as the liberals like to say) "make it fair". So, established gov control but in essance who else would ultimaly do it?

B - Can the government not already take control of your body if they decide they want to do an autopsy on you?For investigation to make sure a crime has not been commited or to establish cause of death. This is in no way the same as being a body parts broker.

Blues,
Dave

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I don't, you do. I think organs should be treated along the same lines as the rest of your estate when you die. Why do you think they shouldn't?

Is this serious thinking, or are you just having fun with semantics?

It's getting real creepy real fast. If the gov has a right to any percentage of my body on death, then don't they also have a right to start taxing it before? That second kidney is a luxury, right?

[shropshire 0]

<< it's turned into a really controversy repetitive.>>

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

Is this serious thinking, or are you just having fun with semantics?

JackC started talking about taking organs compared to taking other stuff - I was continuing the argument in those terms and shifting it a little closer to being an accurate analogy. Not my fault if the entire premise is dumb.

Quote

If the gov has a right to any percentage of my body on death, then don't they also have a right to start taxing it before?

No, that's just silly. And it is also based on the strawman that the proposal we're discussing will actually force anyone to donate who doesn't want to. Which a very large proportion of the arguments against in this thread are based on.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Is this serious thinking, or are you just having fun with semantics?

JackC started talking about taking organs compared to taking other stuff - I was continuing the argument in those terms and shifting it a little closer to being an accurate analogy. Not my fault if the entire premise is dumb.

Quote

If the gov has a right to any percentage of my body on death, then don't they also have a right to start taxing it before?

No, that's just silly. And it is also based on the strawman that the proposal we're discussing will actually force anyone to donate who doesn't want to. Which a very large proportion of the arguments against in this thread are based on.

All true arguments, which you poo-poo away by stating that the same government system that CAN'T get people to sign up for opt-in *now*, will somehow be able to get all those OTHER people to opt-out.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[livendive 8]

Quote

All true arguments, which you poo-poo away by stating that the same government system that CAN'T get people to sign up for opt-in *now*, will somehow be able to get all those OTHER people to opt-out.

People are lazy. We, the population, can either benefit from that laziness or die as a result of it. I know which I'd rather see. Apparently so do you.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

All true arguments, which you poo-poo away by stating that the same government system that CAN'T get people to sign up for opt-in *now*, will somehow be able to get all those OTHER people to opt-out.

You obviously haven't read or understood my posts on the subject then (BTW, you think that suggesting that the proposal we're discussing will start a slippery slope to taking pieces of organs from living people without their consent is a true argument? Really?).

Once more for the cheap seats: I think that there is a large percentage of the population which simply doesn't give much of a shit either way. These are the people who would, when asked in a survey say that they think donation is a good idea but won't actually make the effort to sign onto the donor register. Under the new proposal people who don't give enough of a shit to do anything about it will donate, and people who really don't want their organs to be used will not donate. Just as now people who don't give a shit will not donate, and people who strongly do want their organs to be used will donate.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Is this serious thinking, or are you just having fun with semantics?

JackC started talking about taking organs compared to taking other stuff - I was continuing the argument in those terms and shifting it a little closer to being an accurate analogy. Not my fault if the entire premise is dumb.

I think it would be more productive (which means you'll ignore it in the spirit of SC) to stick to actual arguments you want to make. It's hard to tell when you're serious and when you're being a smartass.

Quote

No, that's just silly. And it is also based on the strawman that the proposal we're discussing will actually force anyone to donate who doesn't want to.

That's not a strawman, it's a given.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It's as doable as fixing that radio. You have to go back in and mess about again, but you can fix it. Guy remains just as dead.

You can not undo an organ transplant.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

All true arguments, which you poo-poo away by stating that the same government system that CAN'T get people to sign up for opt-in *now*, will somehow be able to get all those OTHER people to opt-out.

People are lazy. We, the population, can either benefit from that laziness or die as a result of it. I know which I'd rather see. Apparently so do you.

Blues,
Dave

You obviously missed where I stated that I *am* a donor. The difference is that I made that choice of my own free will. The implied consent proposed takes that free will to make that choice away from the lowest common denominator - the person that is uninformed about the proposed law.

The system isn't broken - quit trying to fix it. If there needs to be more donors, then push more aggressively for people to opt-in.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

You obviously haven't read or understood my posts on the subject then (BTW, you think that suggesting that the proposal we're discussing will start a slippery slope to taking pieces of organs from living people without their consent is a true argument? Really?).

I've understood them just fine. As for your question, when have you EVER seen government constrain itself in any matter, once it's involved?

Quote

Once more for the cheap seats: I think that there is a large percentage of the population which simply doesn't give much of a shit either way. These are the people who would, when asked in a survey say that they think donation is a good idea but won't actually make the effort to sign onto the donor register.

"Thinking it's a good idea" != "I volunteer to donate"

Quote

Under the new proposal people who don't give enough of a shit to do anything about it will donate, and people who really don't want their organs to be used will not donate.

Hence, taking the organs without the explicit permission of the donor.

Quote

Just as now people who don't give a shit will not donate, and people who strongly do want their organs to be used will donate.

As it is now, the government must prove the person was informed and gave their permission for the donation. Big difference.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

All true arguments, which you poo-poo away by stating that the same government system that CAN'T get people to sign up for opt-in *now*, will somehow be able to get all those OTHER people to opt-out.

People are lazy. We, the population, can either benefit from that laziness or die as a result of it. I know which I'd rather see. Apparently so do you.

Blues,
Dave

You obviously missed where I stated that I *am* a donor. The difference is that I made that choice of my own free will. The implied consent proposed takes that free will to make that choice away from the lowest common denominator - the person that is uninformed about the proposed law.

The system isn't broken - quit trying to fix it. If there needs to be more donors, then push more aggressively for people to opt-in.

I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about the lazy people. And I ain't trying to fix it, I'm just arguing on a skydiving website about a proposed law in another country.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)