If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
We don't want presumed consent. Fuck that, says Gordon...
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
So what is our emotionally and psychologically defective Prime Minister on about now? When not chastising George Osborne for telling the truth about the economy - truth hurts, doesn't it Gordon? - he's planning to take over our bodies. According to the Beeb; "Gordon Brown is not ruling out a change in the law on organ donation even though a panel of experts has rejected the idea of 'presumed consent'. The UK Organ Donation Taskforce said assuming organs could be used unless people opted out was unlikely to boost donation rates. A £4.5m public awareness campaign in England will be aimed at boosting voluntary donor numbers. But the prime minister warned if it did not work a law change may follow." Click here for more details.
What is it about the word "no" that this retard doesn't understand? We tell him that we want a referendum on the EU constitution, he ignores us. We tell him we don't want ID cards, he ignores us. We tell him we don't want our bodies to be nationalised by the state, he ignores us. I just wish I could ignore this latest piece of stupidity...
I should perhaps declare an interest. Following the initial debate about this in January, I have since signed up to the Organ Donor register. Since this is a public message board, I'm not going to go into any more details about it. However, what I say is - if people want to allow the state to have access to their bodies after they snuff it, that's their business. It's not the place of here today, gone tomorrow idiots like Macavity to say so otherwise and never will be.
Over to you, ladies, gentlemen, transsexuals and those of you of no gender at all...
What is it about the word "no" that this retard doesn't understand? We tell him that we want a referendum on the EU constitution, he ignores us. We tell him we don't want ID cards, he ignores us. We tell him we don't want our bodies to be nationalised by the state, he ignores us. I just wish I could ignore this latest piece of stupidity...
I should perhaps declare an interest. Following the initial debate about this in January, I have since signed up to the Organ Donor register. Since this is a public message board, I'm not going to go into any more details about it. However, what I say is - if people want to allow the state to have access to their bodies after they snuff it, that's their business. It's not the place of here today, gone tomorrow idiots like Macavity to say so otherwise and never will be.
Over to you, ladies, gentlemen, transsexuals and those of you of no gender at all...
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Permission is granted, not given automatically.
That said, while they keep the bit that says your relatives can over ride what you say it's all a bit daft.
There's also another issue here - the way we, as a society, approach death.
We hae the British way of not wanting to talk about death but I think if the view of orgna donation was changed and people recieved more education then more people may be willing to become organ doners without the implementation of this opt-out system.
Well then make it more accessible.
it's not actually that effective that's why....
stopping families from objecting when someone has agreed to donate ie donor card would be more helpful, also so would co-ordinating better so they know to keep someone's organs from failing before a transplant, because the main difficulties lie in good timing
And you have the nerve to talk about me putting words into your mouth SG?
Im glad you linked to the BBC rather than the daily mail for once.
Is what he has said, so all he has agreed to is to revisit the debate if a big push to register organ donors doesnt work? So it sounds like they are going to try SG's ideas first before they revisit the idea, which may just get thrown out anyway?
So by Gordon Brown saying we are going to avoid brining this opt out system in now, and try other things first, before we even remotely discuss the opt out system. Has been transformed into "fuck that says Brown"
Who is 'we', and when exactly did the telling occur?
See above.
See above.
He's not forcing anyone to donate their organs is he? :rolleyes:
At least 1,000 people die needlessly every year due to lack of organs. That's a third of the total number of deaths on the road we obssess about so much. I say it's a very worthy cause.
I'd like to ask this panel of experts how they can explain Spain's extraordinarily good record on organ donation. By happy coincidence Spain has an opt-out system like the one Brown is proposing. Funny that.
If someone (for whatever reason) doesn't want to donate their organs, there is a very fucking simple solution under the new scheme. Opt out. End of the fucking problem.
:yes: I don't understand why people this this is such a terrible injustice
In my opinion if you don't want your organs to be donated after you die then you shouldn't be allowed anyone else's organs if you get sick.
When I say that people think I'm mad. But why should you be entitled to someone else's organ if you're not willing to donate your own?
There's two reasons why I think people don't want to donate:
1. Religious/ethical - in which case your moral beliefs should stretch to not allowing a transplanted organ in your own body
2. Out of fear/squeamishness/selfishness that you don't want someone messing around with your body after you've died - in which case why should you allow someone else's body to be put through that for you to survive if you wouldn't be willing to do the same
I think people having the right to somebody else's organ when they won't donate their own is a far bigger injustice than being automatically put on a list that you can easily opt out of
Great in theory, but obviously practically it wouldn't work if we accept that people should be allowed to add and remove themselves from the list when they choose. What's to stop someone from adding themselves as soon as they need an organ, and then removing themselves from the list afterwards? I also think it goes against the ideas of the NHS, and being a cunt still shouldn't be enough to stop you from being allowed life-saving treatment imo.
Tbh, I think if you go for an opt-out system then theoretically, you would have enough organs from people who just weren't bothered to put their name down, that if any family who claimed the person forgot to opt out for whatever reason, you could simply say fair enough, we've already got more than enough anyway.
Nothing, but nothing in life is 100% infallible. That doesn't mean we shouldn't go for something when there are good reasons for it. Otherwise we might as well close up shop and and abandon everything else, from the police service to medical care to the justice system, since mistakes are also made there.
No matter how you want to paint it, the fact is that the opt-out system gives everyone a chance to, er... opt out of donating if they wish to.
So what is the problem exactly?
The assumption of perfect information.
The withdrawal of a few people on principle will be far outweighed by all the people who never got around to opting in or who don't give a crap either way.
What exactly do you mean by "The assumption of perfect information"?
Almost everyone i know either is on the list or doesn't care either way, there are very few who actively object to it, and ppl who do have that view will be motivated enough to go make sure they are registered, unlike the huge number of people who wouldn't mind their organs being donated but have never made any arrangements.
I'm gonna presume as well that any next of kin would be able to be got hold of, so even if there is a mistake, then they would make sure that the records were double checked.
Nope but your family and friends would make use of/need it. I doubt your organs are going to be of much use to them.
I can understand if you have strong religious beliefs about it, even if I don't agree with them, but what good does it do burning or burying perfectly good organs just because someone never got around to ticking a box?
Donating organs is important and nowhere near enough people do it, especially when you consider that most wouldn't have a problem with it. This is why it should be more accessible - surely that's the most reasonable answer?
The problem is my organs are mine and they're mine until I give consent for somebody else have them. It should not be for me to have to claim ownership of my body.
I'll happily give them but I'm not some walking organ grow bag for others to help themselves too when I die. It should be a conscious decision on the part of the donor, it shouldn't be involuntary.
If it were more accessible and people still weren't signing up then the opt out may be worth considering but we're yet to proove that greater accessibilty to voluntary donation isn't the answer.
Most sense talked in this thread.
Assuming everyone would learn of it.
People are not just a source of new organs. If someone doesn't want their organs to be cut out of them that's up to them. We should be trying to get people to decide if they want to donate their organs or not, rather than assuming people do. Maybe if people were able to agree to donate organs when they went for a routine blood test or something more people would get around to saying they want to be a donor. The problem is that people know little about organ donation and so don't think about what they want or who to talk to about it. The answer to that is education, not assuming everybody wants their organs taken from them when they die.
No you are not. You would be forced if you didnt have a choice, which funny this opt out system, you do.
If someone is not bothered enough to reseach what would happen to them when they die, then I believe that it is best to allow their organs to be harvested.
People who go through their lives in a cloud of apathy could then at least do something useful when they are dead.