Organ Donation

[mmmc]

Certainly a valid point and being in that situation might cause you to think that one should be able to screen recipients. But I think it goes against the principle of helping whomever is in need without judgement. NHS, unlike private alternatives, treats regardless of underlying causes to the conditions (to the furthest practically possible extent) and thus once a donation is agreed, it should go to the best match with highest need, regardless of moral stance. This would otherwise open up for discrimination in healthcare systems.
If you're happy to give, than give the gift without judgement.

[wasabi]

If you're happy to give, than give the gift without judgement.

Part of the difficulty of the whole thing though, isn't it? What if a lot of people won't volunteer simply because they don't know where it is going to go?

I appreciate however that the ideal of controlling who receives the organ simply wouldn't fly though since 9 times out of 10 it would be for highly un-PC reasons. Never mind impossible to determine the intent reasonably given you're dead. 'No organs to go to infidels.' Which infidels?

[Geist]

I believe opt-out is good. People who don't care, don't care, therefore it benefits others. Those who are against will know of it and be able to op-out. (Ignores government conspiracy theories )

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.

This is what I don't understand. How will opting out of the system, which you currently support, have any impact on the good that might come from being a donor? It feels like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[TheAnimus]

I just can't think how someone would opt out. I can't grasp their selfishness. Have they never had a loved one sick? Have they themselves never been sick.

I can't see how eligible by default is a bad thing. If someone wants to be so incredibly selfish as to deny someone health at zero cost to themselves, why can't they be made to do so.

[Rob_B]

It's their body parts and they can do what the hell they want with them before or after death?

I'd be more for an 'opt in or you don't get organs if you need them' (excluding kids) rather than opt out for reasons I've mentioned before. If take up is low then fix the 'marketing' to increase it before taking the huge step of denying a persons rights to their own body into the hands of politicians...slippery slope and all that jazz!

[TheAnimus]

but this is the point, it isn't their own body, they are dead. It used to be their body.

[Rob_B]

Well then why don't we string them up like puppets and put on shows with them? After all they won't care?

Apologies for the tiny bit of sarcasm there but just as you seem to find it baffling people wouldn't want this I think it's baffling how anyone can think it's ok for the government to assume ownership of a persons' body in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

As I've said I'm a registered donor and although it is blindingly obvious that more organs is a good thing I cannot be ok with presumed consent.

No explicit consent <> consent.

[TheAnimus]

Well then why don't we string them up like puppets and put on shows with them? After all they won't care?

Wasn't that pretty much the whole thing about body works?

Apologies for the tiny bit of sarcasm there but just as you seem to find it baffling people wouldn't want this I think it's baffling how anyone can think it's ok for the government to assume ownership of a persons' body in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Well for a start off technically that person was a Subject to begin with.

I can't see the problem with ownership of you when your dead. The only thing that could be sentient is the brain, so granted, re-animating it 50s style isn't a good idea, but I'd argue you wouldn't be dead at that point anyway, so would be entitled to ownership.

If your dead, your dead, your body is just a lump of mostly water. I think it is childishly entitled to think you have some claim to it.

As it stands lots of people are incentivised by someone's death, often charities and the government, yet they don't go round killing people for it, well aside from Armed Forces etc.

[Rob_B]

Bodyworks? I'm assuming some display of corpses for scientific/education purposes? If so and they had consent from the person then that's ok (?)

I'm atheist and a donor, I know my body is just a lump of carbon and when I'm gone I'm gone but that's not the point, we're human and have to respect people's wishes, if they don't become a donor then that is their choice, the body is theirs, when dead that still applies.

Make a push to get people to sign up rather than giving up and saying "oh screw it we'll just take it anyway"
I do hate the slippery slope argument but this is one of the few times when it is probably a good argument to make.

I wouldn't go to the extent of Saracen and opt out and also say I wouldn't want a transplant but i respect and understand why he says that.

[wasabi]

but this is the point, it isn't their own body, they are dead. It used to be their body.

Presumably all wills are invalid too? They're dead so it used to be their property?

[Saracen]

....

This is what I don't understand. How will opting out of the system, which you currently support, have any impact on the good that might come from being a donor? It feels like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

As the rest of the post you quoted two lines from explained, for me there are two issues, and the reason I would do as I said is the other one.

[santa claus]

This is a real quandary for me and, despite the quality of posting I'm still not convinced either way. On the one hand, I like the thought of someone benefitting from an organ gift but on the other hand I don't like the idea of Government twisting my arm.

And if people dislike the Government more than they like the spirit of altruism, the availability of organs could get even worse.

To avoid dealing with the question, I plan to live until my organs are too old for them to be any use. 'Course theanimus will say that makes me a selfish ol' git

[melon]

This is a real quandary for me and, despite the quality of posting I'm still not convinced either way. On the one hand, I like the thought of someone benefitting from an organ gift but on the other hand I don't like the idea of Government twisting my arm.

And if people dislike the Government more than they like the spirit of altruism, the availability of organs could get even worse.

To avoid dealing with the question, I plan to live until my organs are too old for them to be any use. 'Course theanimus will say that makes me a selfish ol' git

I guess that depends on which organ your talking about..

[TheAnimus]

Presumably all wills are invalid too? They're dead so it used to be their property?

40% of them often are.....

[peterb]

I guess that depends on which organ your talking about..

Not really. Most of the body's organs deteriorate with age (which is ultimately why we age) but the age of the organ in itself doesn't matter if it is still physiologically functional.

[melon]

Not really. Most of the body's organs deteriorate with age (which is ultimately why we age) but the age of the organ in itself doesn't matter if it is still physiologically functional.

Yes, but not all organs are the same ( cough cough ) ,size , not unless some shrink worse than others ?