Organs to be taken without consent

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

The government has no right to make those sort of choices for us.

But it's not. Everyone makes their own choice just as before. Those who cannot be bothered to indicate their choice must be assumed to have chosen one way or the other - this only changes which decision we assume that they have made.

Look at it this way - surveys show that many, many more people are in favour of having their organs harvested than actually carry donor cards - at the moment those people are being forced not to donate against their will. This new move will also diminish the ability of relatives to over-ride the wishes of the deceased.

Quote

People may be forced to donate, if they do not get around to opting out...

Well then they haven't been forced to do anything. The opportunity was there to indicte their objection, they didn't care enough to take it.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[labrys 0]

Quote

at the moment those people are being forced not to donate against their will.

Forced? What total bullshit. They never bothered to go sign the fucking paperwork. No one forced them not to go do it. If people die for lack of donors it's their lazy asses that deserve the blame.

If the governemt wants to get involved then they should campaign for people to go sign up.

Edit to add:

Quote

The opportunity was there to indicte their objection, they didn't care enough to take it.

Tell me again how you're going to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to go opt out and how you're going to guarantee that that information is available when this person arrives at the hospital?

Owned by Remi #?

[JackC 0]

People should not assume thay have the right to help themselves to my stuff just because I'm not using it anymore. The government could make a lot more revenue by making people opt out of a 100% inheritance tax before they die. I wouldn't be in favour of that either.

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

Please explain to me why you think my response is emotion driven? You're making an assumption there that just because I disagree with you I haven't thought it through.

It's an emotionally charged subject. If someone hasn't explained their reasoning of why they think it's wrong, or why they think it denies rights then I will assume the response is emotionally driven.

Quote

Tell me how you're going to make sure everyone has the opportunity to explicitly retain rights? Are you going to go door to door with the paperwork or are you going to give everyone a ride to the office that handles the consent forms?

Media campaigns and mass mailing would do it.

Quote

Here's one example. What about the person who's out for a walk one night and is unlucky enough to be robbed and murdered. No ID. Organs have to be harvested quickly. If we assume consent we may be taking organs from a person with very strong religious objections to donating organs.

A valid point. However an exception which states that unidentified patients do not automatically donate would easily close that loophole.

Quote

Our rights to our bodies should be ours unless explicitly released. And that means that some people who wanted to donate won't donate. That's the way it should be.

Why is that the way it should be?

To repeat my earlier example - those who want to have their organs donated but don't have them harvested for lack of a donor card are currently having their wishes violated, just as you say that those who don't want to donate but haven't expressed it will have their wishes violated under the proposed system. Only difference is, under the current system peoples wishes get violated and other people die as a result.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

Forced? What total bullshit. They never bothered to go sign the fucking paperwork. No one forced them not to go do it. If people die for lack of donors it's their lazy asses that deserve the blame.

Egg-fucking-zactly!

If people can't be bothered to opt out under the new system then they only have their own lazy arses to blame. Difference is, their lazy arses will save lives, where-as currently the lazy arses prevent lives from being saved.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[shropshire 0]

I understand what you're say, I just dont happen to agree. This is taking passive choice away and making people make an active choice to turn around a governmant mandated position.

That is not the role of government, in my opinion.

If the governmant want to increase the number of available donors, they ought to do so through eductation not dictat.

P.S The government a way to good at sucking the blood out of us now... no need to increase that!!

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

[shropshire 0]

<< their lazy arses >>

If anyone needs my lazy arse.... they are in a bad way.

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

[labrys 0]

Quote

A valid point. However an exception which states that unidentified patients do not automatically donate would easily close that loophole.

That means that in order to retain rights a person will be required to carry paperwork or other identification on their person. A great many people believe that inherent rights should not require paperwork. Privledges yes, rights no.

Owned by Remi #?

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

Quote

A valid point. However an exception which states that unidentified patients do not automatically donate would easily close that loophole.

That means that in order to retain rights a person will be required to carry paperwork or other identification on their person. A great many people believe that inherent rights should not require paperwork. Privledges yes, rights no.

You just got my statement completely backwards.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[labrys 0]

Quote

If people can't be bothered to opt out under the new system then they only have their own lazy arses to blame. Difference is, their lazy arses will save lives, where-as currently the lazy arses prevent lives from being saved.

Listen... don't twist my words. The vast majority of people who don't get around to signing organ donar cards just flat don't get around to it. There are probably a small few who simply can't go sign the paperwork. I feel bad for the ones who want to and can't.

If you turn it around then there will be a percentage of people who are simply unable to go sign the forms. What you are proposing forces them to give up basic rights without consent.

If you can explain better than "mass media" how you are going to guarantee that 100% of a society will be able to sign these forms and how you're going to enable people to retain basic rights without carrying a card around I'll get on board.

Owned by Remi #?

[shropshire 0]

Also, why should, say the likes of Jehovah witness and others etc... who have a personal reason for NOT automatically donating have their currently passive declaration, taken away from them...

And, what about visitors to our country?

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

[labrys 0]

Quote

You just got my statement completely backwards.

No, I didn't. Perhaps you just didn't understand my point.

Owned by Remi #?

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

Listen... don't twist my words.

I didn't. My post was a precise reflection of yours. If your words didn't accurately reflect your intended meaning then that is not my fault, is it?

Quote

If you can explain better than "mass media" how you are going to guarantee that 100% of a society will be able to sign these forms and how you're going to enable people to retain basic rights without carrying a card around I'll get on board.

A media campaign consisting of TV spots, billboards and newspaper ads will get the information out there. A mass mailing of forms with pre-paid return envelopes will allow anyone with a fixed address to express their non-consent at a virtual non-expenditure of effort. Forms available at walk in clinics, hospitals and other medical centres will allow the homeless to make their non consent known. Tell me what legitimate reason anyone could have for not expressing non-consent if those measures are taken?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

No, I didn't. Perhaps you just didn't understand my point.

You did. Otherwise how did you get from "unidentified patients will not be assumed to have given consent" to "so you want to force everyone to carry ID"?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

I'd like to add this to Labrys' well-said objections, above.

Why can't the gov't do that SAME media campaign now, to get the people to sign INTO the program rather than sign out? I'm not in favor of having to "sign for" the rights to my body after death.

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

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

Why can't the gov't do that SAME media campaign now, to get the people to sign INTO the program rather than sign out?

I'd say that it still wouldn't have the same effect. Too many people would still be too lazy, or simply not care enough to expend any effort either way for a media campaign in favour of donation to catch the same number of new donors as changing assumed non-consent to assumed consent.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,111]

>Why can't the gov't do that SAME media campaign now, to get the people
>to sign INTO the program rather than sign out?

Why do you have to do either one? Just ask them the question on driver's license forms (or pick your favorite form.) "Organ donor - yes or no. Check one box." Simple.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

To repeat my earlier example - those who want to have their organs donated but don't have them harvested for lack of a donor card are currently having their wishes violated, just as you say that those who don't want to donate but haven't expressed it will have their wishes violated under the proposed system. Only difference is, under the current system peoples wishes get violated and other people die as a result.

No. The right to have your corpse used for good causes is not equal to your right to not have your body violated against your wishes. And the obvious result of changing the presumption towards donation is that errors will be made on the side of donation. That is not acceptable.

Let's be honest - most organ donors (esp liver) put themselves in that position of need. They were the fucking lazy people. I don't think their needs trump people's right to be buried whole, if that's what they want. EDIT: Whoops - organ recipients.

Me personally, registered donor. Plan for cremation.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Why can't the gov't do that SAME media campaign now, to get the people to sign INTO the program rather than sign out?

I'd say that it still wouldn't have the same effect. Too many people would still be too lazy, or simply not care enough to expend any effort either way for a media campaign in favour of donation to catch the same number of new donors as changing assumed non-consent to assumed consent.

Then that's the government's problem, not the individual's.

Do I have the right to walk into your house and help myself to a beer - after all, you didn't sign anything saying that I couldn't?

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Why can't the gov't do that SAME media campaign now, to get the people
>to sign INTO the program rather than sign out?

Why do you have to do either one? Just ask them the question on driver's license forms (or pick your favorite form.) "Organ donor - yes or no. Check one box." Simple.

That's how the Texas DL's are - you make your choice at the time you get the license.

I chose to be a donor. Giving government control by default is, IMO, a mistake.

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

[billvon 3,111]

>That's how the Texas DL's are - you make your choice at the time you get the license.

Sounds like a good option overall.

[labrys 0]

Quote

You did. Otherwise how did you get from "unidentified patients will not be assumed to have given consent" to "so you want to force everyone to carry ID"?

Okay, I did mis-speak. What I was trying to say is this: If you agree that if someone doesn't have an organ donor card then it should be assumed that they do not wish to donate, how does that differ from the current system?

If you're going to tack the "opt out" option to another form of identification then you're forcing people to make a choice about whether or not they want to donate when they decide whether or not they need or want to carry that ID.

If you tacked that "opt out" option to a driver's license, for example, then you're forcing someone to decide whether or not they want to be an organ donor before you allow them to drive. Why should I have to decide if I want to donate before I'm allowed to drive?

The choice needs to be independent of other privledges, which means it needs to be apart from all other forms of identification, which means it needs to be a unique card. Which means if I don't want to donate I just won't go get a card (just like now)

Otherwise, you would be forcing someone to carry paperwork.

Owned by Remi #?

[mnealtx 0]

I hadn't thought of it in that light, Labrys... good points.

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

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

No. The right to have your corpse used for good causes is not equal to your right to not have your body violated against your wishes.

Why not? Why is the right to remain whole more important than the right to be used to help others live? This is what I was getting at earlier when I mentioned emotional responses.

Quote

Let's be honest - most organ donors (esp liver) put themselves in that position of need. They were the fucking lazy people. I don't think their needs trump people's right to be buried whole, if that's what they want.

I believe you meant recipient, not donor. As to your third sentence - no-ones rights will be taken away. People will be able to opt out if they don't want to be used.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[shropshire 0]

Driving License is not such a good idea here in the U.K. You do not have to carry it.

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