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
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Oh my god no!
Think about it for a few minutes, then reconsider what you're saying. That we should give preferential treatment to some people based on external factors? I mean, sure, if someone gives themselves serrosis then hard luck getting a liver transplant when someone who got salmonella innocently needs one.
But if I make a personal decision that is completely my right to make, and you don't agree with it, you would advocate limiting my right to medical treatment.
It's got to be an opt-in system, whether it's comfortable or not, you need the consent. The way I see it, the difference as it stands between an opt-in vs. opt-out system is there are just people who couldn't be bothered who are going to be affected either way.
For simplicities sake and because none of us have any evidence to the contrary, lets assume that the people who dont want their organs taken but couldnt be bothered to opt out and vise versa are roughly the same. Then changing the system moves the 'inconvenience' from one of depriving someone of their wish to have their organs used to depriving someone of their right to not have their organs used. DESPITE the fact it would be better in an external sense i.e. for the patients who need organs, I think it's an uncomfortable reality that we just have to accept we can't cross that threshold.
Just like it's an uncomfortable reality for fathers (for example) who want to keep their kids but the mothers want a termination - it might be better externally for the kid to be born and have a loving dad (I'm being very simplistic though and just trying to draw a parallel) - but it's not a threshold I or anyone else here I'm sure would want to cross in taking away a woman's right over her own body. Just as we can't take away a human's right for his / her own body.
Life isn't perfect sometimes, but occasionally it comes down to the lesser of two evils. According to House (the TV series lol), a lot of organs are thrown away because they are from obese people or people who went to Africa or who are gay or something like that. Now, whilst if I had a kid who needed a heart I'd want him to have a really healthy heart, if it was the choice of a chronic smoker's heart and no heart it's a no brainer.
It's such a complicated issue and in reality it's only people like me whose organs they will happily chop up and give out (I'm a motorcyclist
I'm really shocked at the comments I'm reading in this thread. "At least do something useful when they are dead" ?? Are these people just walking organs to you guys? That they serve no purpose except to extend the life of others through their death?
They're living, breathing, feeling human beings - who have the right one would hope to decide what they want to happen to their bodyparts.
How come we have such a hard time respecting that? Apathy =/= forfeiting rights. You have the right not to get beaten up but supposing if you are a bit lazy about life do you lose that right as well? It's ok as long as they're not an active contributer to society?
For one, we shouldn't take away people's right to their own body. For two, we can't start differentiating people and saying some people have more rights than others based on their actions. (Unless they're very extreme, like killing someone, or something daft like that)
For example, as much as I
I mean, people are free to disagree with me, but that's my opinion. Human being? Human rights. And it should be a human right to have custody of your own body, even in death.
If people can cause this much uproar about something so small as filling in a bit of paper, surely they have the ability and the will to opt in?
And they do, thats why we have organ donors.
I think that you are choosing to read a tad too much into what I put.
I did not make any reference to their contribution to society. My comment about doing something useful was just that - that their dead body could prove useful.
However, in this particular issue I absolutely disagree. Apathy over the use of your body should mean forfeiting the rights to it after your death. Otherwise through your apathy during your life someone else could die who might otherwise live.
I'm not. I'm diferentiating based on their inaction.
Of course it is. And I respect your opinion. However, you are one of a few people who represent the top of the triangle. I.E you are a person that actually gives a damn, and has an opinion. There is a whole mountain of people underneath you who do not give a damn, do not have an opinion, do not care either way, and yet for no good reason we cannot use their organs.
If you care then that's great. You can sign yourself out of the donating system. But we should be presuming that the section of people out there who do not care enough to opt one way or the other are willing to be donors.
People who do not agree with the opt-out system I think often have issues with abstracting themselves out of the equation. Because the people who get involved in these debates tend to be highly emotive about it, they cannot get over the idea that some people just don't care.
Make them give a damn then.
Don't just assume.
Make it easier to sign up.
How easy can it be? All you have to do is visit a website. So anyone here could do it for a start.
Sadly though you miss the point. If someone does not care what happens to their body enough to sign a form to opt out, then we should be able to make use of their organs. The fact that you care is great for you. You can opt-out.
The argument to say "don't just assume" is pointless. You're equally well assuming that someone doesn't want to donate.
Life is about compromises. If someone is against their organs being used they will have ample chances to registering this.
This is lives at stake here. We're not discussing what colour the deceased would like their coffin to be. I'd say that saving 1,000 lives a year is worth asking those who are against donating their organs to make a fucking phone call, send a bleeding form in the post or register their wishes online before they die. If it's not too much trouble, that is.
Does it really come to this? That thousands of human lives are worth less than an individual's laziness?
Presumably you defend the right of someone on a boat not to lend a hand to someone drowning just a couple of feet away and let them drown if the person on the boat can't be arsed to get up and help, and you think there should be no consequences if he does let the victim drown. Right?
*unless there is a duty of care.
Is more closer to the point of law.*
*regardless of duty of care
How often have you been asked to consider it seriously?
I don't think I ever have. I suspect the only thing donor related that most people see is the leaflet in the doctors waiting room. It something people need to be reminded about.
I don't think anybody can disagree with the fact it's not promoted enough.
I don't miss the point. I don't agree.
To use somebody organs you should have their conscious consent. I don't think it's acceptable to take something from somebody simply because they havn't declared they don't want it taken - even if it is for a good cause. You wouldn't do it for any other belongings, so why their organs?
I'm making no assumptions. Organs belong to the donor by default surely? Without consent they stay theirs even in death.
This op out system implies that your organs are the property of the state unless you claim for them.
It's not really comparable to be honest. In that situation your going to be fully aware you can provide immediate help in first person.
The donor situation is more detatched. It's not that people are to lazy as such, it's because most people don't like to think about their own deaths too often, and it's not an issue they consider enough.
It needs to be made a bigger issue, people need to consider it more and there as to be more opertunity to sign up when they do consider it.
I'll agree with Skive. Promote it endlessly. If you get it in the newspapers, on the television, on the blogs, people are going to take notice.
But they WOULDN'T be. They would be dead.
Noone has yet answered WHY the have such a problem with their organs being used to save the life of another. Out of all of you vocalists, how many of you (truthfully now) are actually opted in to donate your organs?
Donating your organs in death would be a selfless act, people who refuse are quite simply passing a death sentence on someone else, and I'm failing to understand WHY people would have a problem with it. All this government control and freedom of choice stuff is bollocks isn't it, you just don't want someone fiddling around with your corpse because you want to look intact when you're 6 feet under.
You don't believe people should have the right to decide what happens to bofy after death?
Noone here has that problem as far as I can see. Some people like myself believe it shoudl be voluntary though.
Me and I have given blood in the past.
This is the attitude that worries me. If somebody doesn't want to donate then you have to respect that for whatever reason.
That's why I'm on the register is it?
No it doesn't, and no it won't. People will have ample chance to express their wish not to donate their organs when they die. And that wish will be respected.
Can we please stop making claims to the contrary? There are disturbingly high numbers of such claims on this thread.
To point 1, I'm asking WHY does it matter? Why does anyone actually care what happens to their body after they are dead when the question they should be asking is "how do I help someone, even in death?"
Point 2, some people obviously do have a problem with it, because they wouldn't be resisting the government's plans so much if they really didn't. As
Point 4, as with above if someone really feels that strongly about it then the onus is on them to opt out. By opting out, they are refusing access to their organs by someone who will actually have a use for them.
More people don't opt in to giving their organs because they simply cannot be bothered. The only time they are ever really asked is when they fill in a drivers licence application. By switching it around we have the potential to save far more lives and improve the quality of life for many others, because on that basis there will be thousands of people who will simply not be bothered about opting out because it's too much effort.
If people have ample chance to make the decision they want then why bother changing the law? All that would happen is the people who want to do it wont have to fill in paper and people who dont want it will.
As minimi said you are assuming there is perfect information, that nobody will slip through the cracks. And that's just the practical problem of getting people to sign a form saying they don't want their organs used.
Ethically, people have a right to their body. That right remains even after they die. We can't assume that people have chosen to donate their body, the default should be they just want to buried / burned. I've never given anyone permission to harvest my organs after I die, yet you want to assume that is my wish unless I explicitly say otherwise?
I appreciate the need for organs and that's what makes it so uncomfortable. Equally, I could argue that because you have not told me otherwise, I have your consent to dress your body up and parade it around London after you die. Or anyone's body who hasn't explicitly told me that's not their wish.
In fact, if we assume that everyone is 'ok' with everything then we would go round the whole time withdrawing our consent for things. The only difference is you are dead when organs are harvested. My opinion is the fact you are dead does not relinquish your right over yourself and your last will etc.
The only reason people want to turn a blind eye to this is because it's easy. They're dead, they can't complain, just do whatever you like with their bodies.
Clearly anyone who doesn't want to donate their organs feels strongly about it (how could it be otherwise, when the decision not to donate organs seems incomprehensible and to be frank rather unpleasant), and you can bet your bottom dollar such people wouldn't lose one second to register their wishes not become donors.
Most of us agree with the idea of donating, but as it happens not nearly enough of us get round to registering as donors.
So it makes sense to change the rules to get maximum results from would-be donors.
If the possibilty of (very rarely) a mistake occurring is reason not to go ahead with this, I want the justice system to fold and disappear, seeing as there have been many cases where they got it wrong and convicted an innocent person. No more police, Courts, law and punishment please.
We simply cannot reject something that would be in the interests of millions on the basis that from time to time an individual might be wronged. That is absurd to be honest.
Yes. You will be asked to clarify your position so there is little danger of your organs being taken against your will.
And if I'm not bothered to clarify my position? Who chooses the default? The default errs on the side of caution - assume you don't have permission to take the organs. That makes perfect sense to me.
I'm assuming since you've said otherwise that you don't mind me stealing all your money?
It's a very good thing to become a donor and help better somebody elses life, but that doesn't mean we should be ostricising for actively choosing not to. The issue needs more exposure and people need to have more opertuinty to sign up but that doesn't mean they should be pressured into it.
I couldn't give a fuck but some people do for a number of reasons, and It's a personal desicion that should be respected.
:yes:
That you can choose what happens to your body even after death is a human right surley. Should human rights be given or should you have to claim for them?