Organ Donation

[Splash]

If any functioning part of me is useful to someone when I die then quite frankly I'd be disappointed that it wasn't used. So long as there's some quality control (I wouldn't want to wish my eyes on anyone) then it's all good in my eyes.

[wasabi]

If any functioning part of me is useful to someone when I die then quite frankly I'd be disappointed that it wasn't used. So long as there's some quality control (I wouldn't want to wish my eyes on anyone) then it's all good in my eyes.

All good. Question is, does the government get to decide that for you?

[wasabi]

Tempora is the UK equivalent which might be greater in scope than PRISM.

Yummy

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

yummy

lol.

[Butcher]

Of course not because they have pretty much have any one else at their disposal to do it instead.

You think all the doctors in the NHS are in cahoots with the government on some big organ harvesting conspiracy? I really don't know where to go on that.

[melon]

You think all the doctors in the NHS are in cahoots with the government on some big organ harvesting conspiracy? I really don't know where to go on that.

I think the doctors ( just like the public ) are pretty powerless to do anything against whatever laws the government decides to pass .

They can go on strike or cry about the ethics and morals of it all they want but in the end they are on the governments payroll so will do whatever they require or simply lose their jobs .

Regardless of how unpopular any law is, the fear of not having any job is worse and will always win out over whatever principals any one has because no one is willing to suffer or sacrifice the little they have.

No one likes Cameron but he is there because the others are just as bad and ,there is no alternative way of changing the government outside of the very laws they represent ( which is increasingly becoming more impossible the more powerful they get )

I dont think anyone outside that cartel cares or even relates to how their actions are affecting the general population, how could they when most of them are not from it and live in class unto itself ..

[peterb]

there is no alternative way of changing the government outside of the very laws they represent

Apart from the general election, now held at a fixed term under legislation brought in by this Government. What alternative do you want - an armed coup? - Military dictatorship? Unelected theocracy?

However - this is getting away from the OP. This is a thread about opt-in, opt-out organ donation, not alternative systems of Government. And if the Government wanted a clandestine system of organ harvesting, it wouldn't matter if it was opt-in or opt-out.

[Saracen]

Apart from the general election, now held at a fixed term under legislation brought in by this Government. What alternative do you want - an armed coup? - Military dictatorship? Unelected theocracy?

However - this is getting away from the OP. This is a thread about opt-in, opt, out organ donation, not allternatie systems of Government. And if the Government wanted a clandestine system of organ harvesting, it wouldn't matter if it was opt-in or opt-out.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Not my words. Churchill. And he's right. So far at least, our system of government has the unedifying distinction of being the least worst form we've found. Not exactly a glowing recommendation, is it?

But, to melon's point about doctors just doing what they're told, not the dictors I know. If told to do something against their medical ethics by government, most would tell them to shove it, and it's not like an SS or Stalinist/Ghadafi thug is standing there with a gun to their head. Governments might create laws, but courts regularly tell them when they've gone to far.



To my mind, conspiracy aside, there are two main issues with opt-in v opt-out, ignoring that they are broad categories and that there are variants, like soft or hard options, and that how they're implemented also matters.

One main issue is pragmatic. Will it, short and long term, raise the number of suitable organs available for transplant?

The second issue is more nuanced. What rights, or concerns, or even just sensibilities, of the public get trampled on in the process?

Few people, I suspect, would say "anything goes" in the drive to secure organs. There are, however we look at it, moral and ethical issues. Otherwise, you open the door to, say, the unemployed, ir homeless, being seen as economically or societally unproductive and valueless, and therefore available to just take whatever spare parts we want.

So, everyone would say the are ethical and moral lines we should not, will not, and do not cross. The only issue is where we draw them.

So even if we do accept that on the pragmatic basis, opt-out is more effective in that the supply goes up, is it at too high a price in terms of reducing people's rights over their own body? And then, why give an opt-out at all? I mean, just mandating that everyone is a donor would see supply go up even more. We don't because we perceive the "right" to have, for instance, a religious reason for refusing, to be sufficient to deny someone else a life-saving transplant.


And if a religious reason is sufficient, why not personal belief? After all, what is religion but a group of people with shared personal beliefs?

My personal beliefs are a religion to me. The group might be small (well, one), but am I not as entitled to my beliefs as anyone else?

And to be clear, I have carried a donor card more or less since the begibning of the system. Certainly 30 years or so. And my immediate relatives know my views, and just for clarity, they're written, signed and witnessed too.

I do support everything possible to widen knowledge of and support for the system, but .... I do NOT believe anyone, the state included, has the right to presume consent to harvest. If a similar system is implemented here, I WILL opt out, and with the same degree of thoroughness that I've currently opted in. Why? Because for my belief system, the second of my main issues is important too, and does not permit "anything goes" in pursuit of the first. Opt out, for me, is a step too far.

And for anyone wondering, or about to ask, I believe that strongly enough that my written, signed and witnessed opt-out WOULD include a written opt-out of receiving transplant organs too. Yes, I would pay that price, if need be.

[Smudger]

Otherwise, you open the door to, say, the unemployed, ir homeless, being seen as economically or societally unproductive and valueless, and therefore available to just take whatever spare parts we want.

I can see that working. Unemployed for more than a year? That's a toe. 5 years? An eye. 10 years? A kidney.
Even better: in prison? that's half your liver.

Mwahahaha.

[Saracen]

I can see that working. Unemployed for more than a year? That's a toe. 5 years? An eye. 10 years? A kidney.
Even better: in prison? that's half your liver.

Mwahahaha.

Well, on the subject of prisoners, I can think of a few from whom extracting a Shylockian pound of flesh would be a good idea .... and a great start. But I was actually making a serious point.

[grayg1]

My issue is with who the organs go to.

[kalniel]

My issue is with who the organs go to.

Well people who need them, presumably. Why do you have a problem with that?

[stilkun]

I dunno why but I remembered a BBC news that a kid in China traded his kidney for an iPad...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-19197542

Organs goes to who needs it the most if they match organ donor. My only concern about the organ donation if it comes from person who is healthy or not because I recall a bbc news that a cystic fibrosis woman died with smoker's donor lungs: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-20762437

[LowMoralFibre]

I'd be hard pressed to think of a reason why my organs shouldn't be put to good use so if consent was presumed I'd have no issue.

[TooNice]

Well people who need them, presumably. Why do you have a problem with that?

Taking an extreme example, a person goes on a public rampage killing many people over a period of time (think 2011 Norway), that ended up only after a shoot out with the police. The killer ends up shot, but miraculously survives, yet is an urgent need of an organ transplant. As I understand, doctors have a duty to save him regardless of what he's done. But I can certainly see how unfair/messed up it is if the most compatible organ available turned out to be one of the former victims and he ends up saved by it. Or from a member of a grieving family. The current system may not allow them to know where the organs go, but I do not think that it is a stretch to think that many would vehemently oppose helping the person who has done what they've done and caused so much personal grief.

An extreme example, but you can probably step back from that example and still think of scenarios where some people might object (if they could) to donating their organs..

[kalniel]

Good example. Personally I'm in agreement with the principle that even a killer's life is important and that we should do all we can to keep them alive so they face justice (ie the shooting of them would only be to prevent them from carrying out their atrocities), otherwise you go down the route of justifying death penalties etc.

But I do appreciate that some people have different views, and certainly that if you're affected by a horrendous event like that you'd be quite likely to take a view that you otherwise wouldn't.