Organ Donation or State Bodysnatching?

[Dukat]

The law says differently.

How is this relevent though?

"because once I die I want to be dead - not 'mostly dead' with some parts still alive'"

How is the law relevent to a statement like this?

Its like saying that if someone kills your kids and dances on thier graves, "the law says" you're not supposed to hurt them - its not going to matter much is it? Its down to gut feelings, like I said, my reasons probably fall under the "religious grounds" category, even though I'm not particularly religious, I just dont like the idea of a part of me living on inside someone else, unless perhaps in certain circumstances/conditions(eg. who gets what), and as this case shows those conditions are not acceptable.

I'm not against people being organ donors, or people receiving them, or whatever, I just feel like I wouldnt want to do it myself.

The law might say blood and organs are the same thing, but the law says alot of things, if the government decided, the law could say the sky is now officially red. its not like it will really make much of a difference in the real world, is it?

EDIT: I agree with RB btw about people who opt-out being given lower priority for receiving, I'm aware that my attitude is fairly selfish, and perhaps if I knew I was going to die I might psyche myself up and agree to it, but if I die suddenly, I want to be left alone as far as is possible, I dont even like the idea of postmortems, it just scares me far more than dying for some reason.

 

[Chronictank]

Sorry, when I said mandatory organ donation, I meant opt-out organ donation.

I.e. rather than having to sign a bit of paper saying your willing to give them up, you have to sign a bit of paper saying you don't want them removing.

In any case, in my opinion if you do opt-out I think that should then automatically make you lowest priority for receiving organs.

again you didn't address the fact that you are using peoples ignorance to get something you want

Do not give the bullsh** line about it being well advertised, if you want to advertise how about advertise to get people to donate instead?
The very fact most people do not shows pretty clearly that people do not want to, and as such you are going against their will

In any other context what you are saying is Fraud

 

[DaGaffer]

I thought it was pretty damn obviously implied in my post that the reason I would not want to donate my organs after I die is because once I die I want to be dead, not "mostly dead" with some bits still living.

How the hell would you be "mostly dead" if you've given away an organ? There's..."alive", and, stay with me here..."dead". "Mostly dead" only applies in The Princess Bride.

 

[RandomBastard]

again you didn't address the fact that you are using peoples ignorance to get something you want

Do not give the bullsh** line about it being well advertised, if you want to advertise how about advertise to get people to donate instead?
The very fact most people do not shows pretty clearly that people do not want to, and as such you are going against their will

In any other context what you are saying is Fraud

Actually surveys show quite a high percentage of people who would donate but haven't bothered to sign up.

 

[rynnor]

We should let people sell their organs - if thousands are dying every year from lack of organs this would sort the whole thing without need for making it mandatory.

Hell you can sell sperm but not your own body parts? Its a crazy world

 

[rynnor]

Actually surveys show quite a high percentage of people who would donate but haven't bothered to sign up.

Maybe but if a charity took money from peoples accounts saying 'were sure they wanted to donate but just hadnt gotten round to it yet' they would go down for theft - no difference in this case.

 

[Cadiva]

selfish? maybe but i dont care about some1 ive never met

Urm, aren't you rather missing the point of organ donation then?

 

[Dukat]

How the hell would you be "mostly dead" if you've given away an organ? There's..."alive", and, stay with me here..."dead". "Mostly dead" only applies in The Princess Bride.

"Mostly dead" meaning you're dead, but part of your body isnt. Its actually pretty obvious when you stop to think about it.

 

[gohan]

Urm, aren't you rather missing the point of organ donation then?

when you quote 1 line out of context then yes

i also said before that family should be priority, not if no1 is ill in family send it to the bin ect

 

[DaGaffer]

"Mostly dead" meaning you're dead, but part of your body isnt. Its actually pretty obvious when you stop to think about it.

No...that's just dead. Its like worrying about the fate of a cut toenail. If you're dead, you're in no position to give a shit if your kidney's gone walkabout.

 

[Chronictank]

Actually surveys show quite a high percentage of people who would donate but haven't bothered to sign up.

Yet they dont.....
Actions speak louder than words, theres a big difference between actually going on a donor list and ticking a box in a survey which is more than likely to be heavy on laying on the guilt (a source would be good if you could)
But if the survey is indeed true the solution would be to make it easier to donate not try and trick people into having their organs stolen (yes taking without explicit concent is indeed stealing, be it from the donor or the family as we have already covered your body isnt owned by the government)

You have yet to come up for a single legitimate reason why it should be assumed you want to donate

 

[Dukat]

No...that's just dead. Its like worrying about the fate of a cut toenail. If you're dead, you're in no position to give a shit if your kidney's gone walkabout.

Sorry, I disagree.

Whats more, I'm not dead now, and I do care what happens to my remains after I die, whether you believe I am in a position to do that or not doesnt mean a whole hell of a lot to me.

If I die and my remains get mashed up in the act then fair enough, but the idea of someone cutting me up after I die freaks me out far more than death itself - like I said, postmortems and such scare me as well.

I dont expect everyone to believe this, or to hold the same point of view, I cant help the way I feel though.

 

[DaGaffer]

There are so many logical absurdities in what you just said, but its just not worth the debate. Suffice to say several people could be cured of crippling/life-threatening diseases if "people" didn't carry around bloody silly superstitions.

 

[Will]

I'm surprised in this day and age anyone doesn't think being an organ donor is a good idea, let alone smacking someone down for suggesting it.

Go and smash up some cotton looms or something.

 

[rynnor]

I'm surprised in this day and age anyone doesn't think being an organ donor is a good idea, let alone smacking someone down for suggesting it.

I dont think anyones against people voluntarily donating organs - what most people dont like is presumed donation that the government are considering.

 

[Chronictank]

I'm surprised in this day and age anyone doesn't think being an organ donor is a good idea, let alone smacking someone down for suggesting it.

Go and smash up some cotton looms or something.

i have nothing against voluntary donations at all, however taking peoples organs against their will is another matter entirely

 

[Tom]

It wouldn't be against their will though. It would be against their apathy, the lazy *****.

 

[Chronictank]

It wouldn't be against their will though. It would be against their apathy, the lazy *****.

not if they dont know about it, which will happen
it would be 100% against their will

How many doctors have said to you, did you know you can donate organs, this is how?
How many leaflets have you seen on guidance?
Tv ads off the top of your head?
When you sign up to your GP did they ask you?
How about if you go to hospital anyone ask if you want to become a donor?

Didnt think so


Lets use the same ridiculous mindset on something more at home,
a policeman is doing his/her job, they go to a area for their patrol where there are known shootings
policeman gets shot, is it the policemans fault for not wearing a vest?
After all the criminal presumed they all do

The only lazy **** are the ones who want to donate but dont do anything about it, not people who are being tricked into it
God i hope labour dont win the next election, this country is going to pot
But then there arent exactly many other more sane options

 

[n00b]

I just think its sad that people are picking on Gohan for how he spells, when even i that are not english nor have english as my native language fully understand what the bloke is trying to say.
He has a point and all you can do is call him illeterate etc....sad sad

My 2 cents

Back to topic: I might be selfish too, but i dont see that i would like to give my organs away, that might change with time tho....

 

[Tom]

tricked into it

Nobody would be tricked into it. We have a parliament composed of local representatives who would debate the matter. We have a second chamber of Lords who would debate any proposals the MPs came up with.

Now if theres somebody in the country who doesn't care enough to get involved with the process, listen to the arguments, and voice his/her opinion, that isn't being tricked into it. Its called apathy and you get the government you deserve.

If you don't like the idea, write to your MP and find out their position. Or you could stay indoors and sign an online petition that will do bugger all.

 

[rynnor]

I dont see whats wrong with people selling their organs frankly - I know some may say this might lead to exploitation of the poor but its currently legal to pay those same poor people to undergo risky medical experimentation so surely selling the organs of dead people is fine by comparison???

 

[Dukat]

There are so many logical absurdities in what you just said, but its just not worth the debate. Suffice to say several people could be cured of crippling/life-threatening diseases if "people" didn't carry around bloody silly superstitions.

While I'm not afraid of having my belief's questioned, I dont like having them ridiculed. You've acted like you've got a giant stick up your arse this entire thread. I'm not having to resort to hurling insults here, so why are you?

I've said that I know my attitude is selfish, and that if there was an opt-out policy that I would agree that those who opted out should have a lower place in the list (if any at all) for receiving. I've even said that I agree with organ donation, but I just dont want to be a part of it. What more do you want?

I cant help it if you see my beliefs as nothing more than silly superstition anymore than I can help the fact that those are my beliefs.

To tell the truth I never really thought about it this much until I started posting in this thread, before it was just a vague fear of the whole subject, but the more I read up on it, the more I know that it just isnt something I would want.

I am very, very sorry if my attitude is stopping people from being cured of life threatening diseases, and like I said, if I am given the chance to prepare before I die then I may well agree to become a donor, but I just dont feel comfortable with it otherwise.

Why are you so intolerant and unwilling to see where I'm coming from on this? I've told you I have donated blood in the past, I'm not apathetic nor completely selfish in my motives, I just have my own beliefs and I want to do the best I can by them. It might not sit well with your logic, but with mine it sits just fine.

 

[Chronictank]

Now if theres somebody in the country who doesn't care enough to get involved with the process, listen to the arguments, and voice his/her opinion, that isn't being tricked into it. Its called apathy and you get the government you deserve.

If you don't like the idea, write to your MP and find out their position. Or you could stay indoors and sign an online petition that will do bugger all.

What process?, there was no process
the labour party who holds a majority (who i didnt vote for before you begin), is forcing legislation through.
There was no referendum, there was no asking for public opinion, there was no discussion or debate so your argument is fundementally flawed
Hell there wasn't even a labour representative of any real significance when it was raised at Question Time, as far as i know the issue hasn't even been raised at prime ministers questions on Wednesday

 

[DaGaffer]

Why are you so intolerant and unwilling to see where I'm coming from on this? I've told you I have donated blood in the past, I'm not apathetic nor completely selfish in my motives, I just have my own beliefs and I want to do the best I can by them. It might not sit well with your logic, but with mine it sits just fine.

Sorry, but I'm just very intolerant of irrational behaviour. I know when I'm being irrational, and I make an effort to not do it (I don't always succeed, but at least I try). You have a fear of your bits being "alive" after you're dead. Fine, I have a fear of fire, but if I had to run into a burning building to save someone, I like to think I'd at least try to overcome my fears, and unlike your fear, mine is rational.

I'm sorry you feel insulted by this, but I feel just as strongly about it, and I have logic and altruism on my side, and accepting people have a different point of view is just touchy-feely hippy crap and I'm having none of it

 

[Tom]

What process?, there was no process
the labour party who holds a majority (who i didnt vote for before you begin), is forcing legislation through.
There was no referendum, there was no asking for public opinion, there was no discussion or debate so your argument is fundementally flawed
Hell there wasn't even a labour representative of any real significance when it was raised at Question Time, as far as i know the issue hasn't even been raised at prime ministers questions on Wednesday

No process? So you didn't vote at the last general election? You don't communicate with your MP?

You don't get a referendum. We elect people to make these decisions for us.

Question Time is just a programme on the TV, and Prime Minister's questions is just that. Perhaps the majority of MPs in parliament think its a good idea - but any legislation will go to the house of Lords, and there is nothing stopping you asking your MP what they think, and telling them your point of view.

If you don't participate, you don't have any right to moan. Unless you actually get out there and let your MP know what you think (along with everyone else who can be bothered) you'll always be disappointed. If your MP doesn't reflect your views, then stand for parliament yourself.

But all this is too much hard work, people would rather sit at their computer and whinge.

 

[Cadiva]

when you quote 1 line out of context then yes

i also said before that family should be priority, not if no1 is ill in family send it to the bin ect

Well what you said was that you didn't care about some nameless stranger and considering the whole objective behind organ donation IS to give organs to people you don't know, then I still stand by my comment.

 

[Chronictank]

No process? So you didn't vote at the last general election?

I voted against the government currently in power, i said this already because i predeicted a suitably stupid responce would occur
Last i checked stealing organs wasnt on the agenda prior to the election

You don't get a referendum. We elect people to make these decisions for us.

Referendums can be proposed for issues that will significantly affect the country, they are not legally binding as they can be overturned by parliment so in essense are a measure to gague public opinion. One such example is when there was a referendum in joining europe in 1972.

Question Time is just a programme on the TV, and Prime Minister's questions is just that. Perhaps the majority of MPs in parliament think its a good idea - but any legislation will go to the house of Lords, and there is nothing stopping you asking your MP what they think, and telling them your point of view.

Question Time provides a forum for the general public to discuss issues with members of various parties (usually back benchers) and public elements in a public forum. The very fact that there are standing orders to prevent ministers lying shows the significance of the show in todays political enviroment
Of course there is nothing stoping me from contactig y local mp, but what will it achieve? absolutely f*** all they will just ignore it if the labour party wants to push a legislation, it quite simply can regardless if EVERYONE else voted against it

If you don't participate, you don't have any right to moan. Unless you actually get out there and let your MP know what you think (along with everyone else who can be bothered) you'll always be disappointed.

But all this is too much hard work, people would rather sit at their computer and whinge.

and how do you know i haven't? i didnt realise you had magic powers which allow you to gain insight into what everyone is doing

If your MP doesn't reflect your views, then stand for parliament yourself.

your lack of grip on reality did make me laugh
After all everyone quits their job and stands up for election because they disagree with one policy

Nice try to digress from the topic though, still waiting for a good reason for presumed content btw

 

[Tom]

I voted against the government currently in power, i said this already because i predeicted a suitably stupid responce would occur
Last i checked stealing organs wasnt on the agenda prior to the election

It doesn't need to be. In fact, when you vote in a general election you're not voting for a party manifesto - you're voting for a local MP. It amazes me how many people don't get this, the same ones are always waffling on about how Gordon Brown wasn't voted in. He was.

Referendums can be proposed for issues that will significantly affect the country, they are not legally binding as they can be overturned by parliment so in essense are a measure to gague public opinion. One such example is when there was a referendum in joining europe in 1972.

They're also extremely expensive and completely unnecessary. MPs gauge the opinion of their constituents and on a matter like this will almost certainly be given a free vote (if it is required). So the only way to influence this is for enough of you to complain to your MP. If not enough people do, tough.

Question Time provides a forum for the general public to discuss issues with members of various parties (usually back benchers) and public elements in a public forum. The very fact that there are standing orders to prevent ministers lying shows the significance of the show in todays political enviroment

lmao - when was the last time you heard a minister or MP on QT answer a question with anything other than the party line? I can recall only one occasion, Edward Heath decrying the state of the Conservative party after 1997.

Of course there is nothing stoping me from contactig y local mp, but what will it achieve? absolutely f*** all they will just ignore it if the labour party wants to push a legislation, it quite simply can regardless if EVERYONE else voted against it

Sorry but you are plain wrong, and have obviously never tried. You also don't understand that it isn't just your voice that matters, its the voice of all the constituents that your MP represents. So if nobody complains, nothing changes. Attitudes like yours are part of the reason why we have such low turnout. Don't vote for a party, vote for a person ffs.

and how do you know i haven't? i didnt realise you had magic powers which allow you to gain insight into what everyone is doing

I'd put money on you doing precisely fuck all but moaning. Do you know who your local councillors are?

your lack of grip on reality did make me laugh
After all everyone quits their job and stands up for election because they disagree with one policy

You don't have to quit your job to be a councillor. In fact given the low allowances they have, you'd be silly to. An MP is a different matter, mind you the pay isn't bad. Actually, you don't even need to quit to run for parliament. You only need to win.

Nice try to digress from the topic though, still waiting for a good reason for presumed content btw

A good reason would be thousands of lives saved per year vs organs rotting away or being cremated for no reason at all.

 

[00dave]

OK here's another side of the arguement that nobody ever wants to talk about because it's morally wrong to even think it, but here I go. You say thousands of lives saved every year, well in a few years time its going to be a few thousand people still alive and part of the population. I'm not sure we can afford those kinds of numbers after 10 years or so, not with current imigration policies and the birth rate of benefit bums (How many kids do chavs need). With people living longer there are already problems with the pension system and the NHS.

They had a similar problem in China and had to limit how many children people could have. The sad fact is that nature has to take its course, people have to die to make way for others. Yes I know it's a horrible thing to say and I know I'm a monster for saying it but it is true. Check the birth to death ratios and see if I'm right (because I can't be bothered)

I'd like to point out that this and most of my posts are not researched and are dug, reluctantly in most cases, from the back of my head. If you have a valid arguement then make it and don't go quoting me out of context.

 

[DaGaffer]

OK here's another side of the arguement that nobody ever wants to talk about because it's morally wrong to even think it, but here I go. You say thousands of lives saved every year, well in a few years time its going to be a few thousand people still alive and part of the population. I'm not sure we can afford those kinds of numbers after 10 years or so, not with current imigration policies and the birth rate of benefit bums (How many kids do chavs need). With people living longer there are already problems with the pension system and the NHS.

They had a similar problem in China and had to limit how many children people could have. The sad fact is that nature has to take its course, people have to die to make way for others. Yes I know it's a horrible thing to say and I know I'm a monster for saying it but it is true. Check the birth to death ratios and see if I'm right (because I can't be bothered)

I'd like to point out that this and most of my posts are not researched and are dug, reluctantly in most cases, from the back of my head. If you have a valid arguement then make it and don't go quoting me out of context.

Valid points, except they assume the only people who need transplants are old and/or can't make an economic contribution. My niece was six when she needed a bone-marrow transplant, which was difficult enough (and that only requires a live donor).

Also, you can't equate chavs having too many kids or unlimited immigration with this; they're separate issues, and a few thousand transplants a year isn't going to have that much of an impact on population numbers (and that's all we're talking about really - the limiting factor is the number of qualified surgeons).