Organs to be taken without consent

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

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.

Oh, you could remove the transplanted organ...but can you imagine the hue and cry over that? Non-donors would be seen as monsters for not allowing it... an extreme version of some of the opinions on this thread.

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

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

That's enough out of you, young man - don't you see that we're solving all the world's problems, here???

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

You can not undo an organ transplant.

Oh, you could remove the transplanted organ...but can you imagine the hue and cry over that? Non-donors would be seen as monsters for not allowing it... an extreme version of some of the opinions on this thread.

You technically can do it, but it violates any system of medical ethics and common sense to do so. So once its in the recipient's body, it now belongs to him.

[JackC 0]

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. 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.

That might happen. Then again, Sweden has an opt out policy and they have a lower donor rate than the UK because people do actually opt out, in large numbers. So there is no guarantee that changing the law will improve things.

Then there is the idea that you actually have rights over your own body. That means that people don't have dibs on your giblets just because you are too lazy to tell them to sod off. (I don't mean you specifically Jakee, I'm using the generic you). It's the same principle you would apply to your financial estate except it's applied to your body parts. Not giving a shit doesn't mean you're fair game to be ripped off.

There is also the potential for abuse. If organs are fair game due to a presumed censent, the organ transplant service may get rather trigger happy about whipping those juicy kidneys out while they are fresh. Maybe they'll even hurry the process along a bit. Anyone remember the organ retention scandal where staff at Alder Hey hospital illegally removed and kept organs from hundreds of children who died there? Abuse of the system has happened in the past and probably will again.

Database's are not foolproof. Of the god knows how many databases your personal details are on, they will undoubtedly be incorrect on a significant portion of them (unfortunately, I can't find the actual numbers). It would be easy to mistype a check box, or misread it, maybe deliberately. The government has also proved to be rather slap-dash in their security arangements. Remember they recently lost the entire CPS database containing the details of over 25 million people? Plus a few more lost databases here and there.

The current opt-in system doesn't suffer from any of these problems and, as the US example shows, can be just as efficient as the best opt-out systems. There is no good reason to change and quite a few good ones not to.

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

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?

Seriously? Most of the time. I know it's a great thing to bitch about but in all honesty we're still pretty free, aren't we? Can you give an example of a 'slippery slope' action by your government or mine that had a result equal to forcibly taking pieces of organs from live people?

Quote

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

Poor wording on my part, I apologise. The surveys I'm talking about show that the vast majority of the population are in favour of having their organs used. Far more than are on the donor register.

Quote

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

I know, that's the whole gist of the proposal I've been defending. Taking from people haven't bothered giving explicit permission but who don't give a shit if their organs are taken.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

That might happen. Then again, Sweden has an opt out policy and they have a lower donor rate than the UK because people do actually opt out, in large numbers. So there is no guarantee that changing the law will improve things.

Database's are not foolproof. Of the god knows how many databases your personal details are on, they will undoubtedly be incorrect on a significant portion of them (unfortunately, I can't find the actual numbers). It would be easy to mistype a check box, or misread it, maybe deliberately. The government has also proved to be rather slap-dash in their security arangements. Remember they recently lost the entire CPS database containing the details of over 25 million people? Plus a few more lost databases here and there.

Very valid points (although to be honest personal details are being held on so many databases these days I do wonder whether one more here or there makes a blind bit of difference anymore).

And it would be nice to see a concerted effort to make the opt in system work better, the yes/no check boxes on D/L applications, census' and whatever. I honestly still don't see the moral/ idealist objection to opt out though.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Seriously? Most of the time. I know it's a great thing to bitch about but in all honesty we're still pretty free, aren't we? Can you give an example of a 'slippery slope' action by your government or mine that had a result equal to forcibly taking pieces of organs from live people?

Well, as I'm sure you're aware, we are holding 'enemy combatants' indefinitely without trial. Openly using torture. Your country was just as 'free' in treating the IRA problem. This is probably the closest to stealing organs. The scary part is this is the shit we know about.

Both are on a slippery slope with gun rights, with your's decided they never even existed. Free speech is also subject to government censorship.

Quote

Poor wording on my part, I apologise. The surveys I'm talking about show that the vast majority of the population are in favour of having their organs used. Far more than are on the donor register.

Yet they don't bother to check a box. So they could be lazy, or maybe they just don't want to tell the pollster they're a selfish bastard and lie. This is also going to show up with Obama polling.

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

Well, as I'm sure you're aware, we are holding 'enemy combatants' indefinitely without trial. Openly using torture. Your country was just as 'free' in treating the IRA problem. This is probably the closest to stealing organs. The scary part is this is the shit we know about.

Was that a 'slippery slope' action from an innocuous first step? All that stuff pretty much just happened in one fell swoop, didn't it?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Can you give an example of a 'slippery slope' action by your government or mine that had a result equal to forcibly taking pieces of organs from live people?

Taxes come immediately to mind.

Quote

Poor wording on my part, I apologise. The surveys I'm talking about show that the vast majority of the population are in favour of having their organs used. Far more than are on the donor register.

No problem, on the wording. Question: If they could poll all those people, why couldn't they sign them up and solve the perceived problem????

Quote

I know, that's the whole gist of the proposal I've been defending. Taking from people haven't bothered giving explicit permission but who don't give a shit if their organs are taken.

Yes, I know. The problem is that, minus any documentation, you don't KNOW that the person gave permission. That, IMO is the problem with an opt-out scenario and where it fails - the uninformed person who was not aware of the protocol.

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

[billvon 3,009]

>You can not undo an organ transplant.

They can and have been "undone."

[labrys 0]

Quote

I know it's a great thing to bitch about but in all honesty we're still pretty free, aren't we?

Pretty free?

Jesus H. Fucking Christ.

"Pretty free" means less than fully free. If you want to live in that world I pity you, honestly.

Owned by Remi #?

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

"Pretty free" means less than fully free. If you want to live in that world I pity you, honestly.

Eh? I was just pointing out the flaw of the 'everything leads to a slippery slope' argument.

Also, you might want to check in on the Ayn Rand capitalism thread. No-one in a developed society is or can be completely free.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

"Pretty free" means less than fully free. If you want to live in that world I pity you, honestly.

Eh? I was just pointing out the flaw of the 'everything leads to a slippery slope' argument.

Also, you might want to check in on the Ayn Rand capitalism thread. No-one in a developed society is or can be completely free.

...not meant completly in the context of this specific post ok!.......

Please, tell me honestly. You do not work in a job where drug testing is required, correct?

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

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

Please, tell me honestly. You do not work in a job where drug testing is required, correct?

No. Would be a major logical flaw to asume that means I use drugs though.

And what did I say in that post that you think was untrue? Does every government action lead to a complete loss of freedoms in that area? No, of course it doesn't.

In a functional society can everyone be free to do whatever they want? No, of course they can't.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[labrys 0]

Quote

Also, you might want to check in on the Ayn Rand capitalism thread. No-one in a developed society is or can be completely free

I'll take personal experience over the Ayn Rand thread, jakee. Do you really need an Internet post to prove to you that you can't be free?

Try stepping out and experiencing freedom beyond the bounds of what someone in the ether tells you is possible.

Owned by Remi #?

[Royd 0]

Quote

I have known many patients who were waiting for an organ and most of them died without getting one, their lives cut very short.

No, their number was up. Maybe I'm a fatalist, but the Bible says that your days are numbered. If you were sick unto death, your time was running out anyway.
What's the big deal, anyway. Most liberals think that the world is overpopulated, and humans are destroying the planet. It's time to get it all balanced out.

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

I'll take personal experience over the Ayn Rand thread, jakee. Do you really need an Internet post to prove to you that you can't be free?

Actually I wanted you to look at it because I've posted my reasoning there already and thought it would be easier for you to read it there than for me to repeat it here.

But... here we go again. Being completely free means being completely free. Free to do anything at all (are you seeing the problem yet?). Free to, for instance, break into your house and take all your stuff.

Society cannot exist if everyone is completely free. In fact, being completely free paradoxically means that we become less free. Freedoms get curtailed ( the freedom to break into your etc. etc.) in order to protect our freedom. Sounds freaky, but it's true.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

No, their number was up. Maybe I'm a fatalist, but the Bible says that your days are numbered. If you were sick unto death, your time was running out anyway.

What complete bullshit. No need for doctors - if you die without getting help from one it was 'cos your number was up, inescapable destiny you see! While we're at it, no need to punish murderers either, they're simply carrying out God's preordained plan to the letter

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[labrys 0]

Quote

Sounds freaky, but it's true.

Prove that it's true

Owned by Remi #?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>You can not undo an organ transplant.

They can and have been "undone."

To stick the organ into a coffin? No. They get undone when they aren't working. No doctor is going to subject a person to a hazardous surgery to remove a functional donated organ so it can be returned to a dead guy's family.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Well, as I'm sure you're aware, we are holding 'enemy combatants' indefinitely without trial. Openly using torture. Your country was just as 'free' in treating the IRA problem. This is probably the closest to stealing organs. The scary part is this is the shit we know about.

Was that a 'slippery slope' action from an innocuous first step? All that stuff pretty much just happened in one fell swoop, didn't it?

No, it did not happen in one fell swoop, though some leftists seem to think that America was a saint until Shrub took office.

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

Prove that it's true

To be fully free there would be no law governing your behaviour. There would therefore be no police (no laws to enforce).

Are you more free with police and a justice system catching and punishing criminals, or by guarding your door with a gun all night?

Are you more free with rapists being caught and put behind bars, or with them roaming the streets?

Are you more free with society, or anarchy?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[labrys 0]

Quote

To be fully free there would be no law governing your behaviour.

Do you believe that the majority would coose to be selfish if there were no outside laws governing their behavior?

Owned by Remi #?

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

Do you believe that the majority would choose to be selfish if there were no outside laws governing their behavior?

Doesn't have to be the majority. Doesn't take very many at all to properly fuck it up for the rest of us.

Remember not to limit your thinking to what individuals would do with no law - just think what corporations would try and get away with if there was no oversight! Would you really want to live in that world?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Do you believe that the majority would choose to be selfish if there were no outside laws governing their behavior?

Doesn't have to be the majority. Doesn't take very many at all to properly fuck it up for the rest of us.

Remember not to limit your thinking to what individuals would do with no law - just think what corporations would try and get away with if there was no oversight! Would you really want to live in that world?

As long as YOU agree with (insert jakee's position here) why else would even care???


What a hoot.

It is people like you that make me more confident in my poistions. For that I have to thank you

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