Organ donation

[stonerblue]

I agree with organ donation, it's something I've meant to sort out for myself, but to call for organ donation to be an "opt-out" system, whilst I'm 100% sure is done so with the very best of intentions, is at best naive and at worst unethical.

An "opt-out" system means that you're saying to people that they don't actually own their own bodies. Ignoring for a moment the implications of that when it comes to property rights, it's completely ludicrous.

I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears ...but the question is whose ears?

Why do people so easily descend into using force against others?

Couldn't disagree more.

An opt-out system gives those that think about it the right to determine what happens to their body parts.
People, like yourself, who would allow their bodies to be used but 'haven't got round to filling in a card' are exactly the people an opt-out scheme is aimed at.
It's nowt to do with 'force'.
This argument about 'property rights' sums up modern society in general. Me me me.

 

[ElanJo]

I agree with organ donation, it's something I've meant to sort out for myself, but to call for organ donation to be an "opt-out" system, whilst I'm 100% sure is done so with the very best of intentions, is at best naive and at worst unethical.

An "opt-out" system means that you're saying to people that they don't actually own their own bodies. Ignoring for a moment the implications of that when it comes to property rights, it's completely ludicrous.

I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears ...but the question is whose ears?

Why do people so easily descend into using force against others?

Couldn't disagree more.

An opt-out system gives those that think about it the right to determine what happens to their body parts.
People, like yourself, who would allow their bodies to be used but 'haven't got round to filling in a card' are exactly the people an opt-out scheme is aimed at.
It's nowt to do with 'force'.
This argument about 'property rights' sums up modern society in general. Me me me.

An opt-out system = people don't own their own bodies. If you actually disagree with this, which you say you do, then you need to put your brain in gear. It's a completely ludicrous notion.

"It's nowt to do with force"? So how do you propose you enforce it? Please, at least acknowledge what is it is that you're proposing. If you don't then well you just come off as someone incapable of rational thought...

 

[jason_donaldson]

When you turn 16 (or some set age) you get a letter saying you are being automatically registered for organ donation, go to this website or fill out this form to opt out. No-one is so busy they can't log onto a website and click a few buttons. Before that, it's up to parents.

Severely mentally handicapped people are on some kind of disabled register aren't they? (could be wrong) Can't be that hard to exclude them and have it as an opt-in system.

What happens if the kid comes from a bad home and there in care and are bounced around from one place to another and never get that letter ? Or what if a kid gets that letter but forgets all about it because something major and life changing could happen to them that day ? What happens if they get the letter then send it of opting out and it gets lost in the post ?

Kids talk to each other. I'm sure they would find out. I'm pretty sure if it came in it would be discussed as school officially or not.

 

[scall11]

Simple. When you register a birth, you have to sign a form to opt the baby out if you want, otherwise, they're on it.

When you get your NI number, you also have another chance to opt out

 

[stonerblue]

Couldn't disagree more.

An opt-out system gives those that think about it the right to determine what happens to their body parts.
People, like yourself, who would allow their bodies to be used but 'haven't got round to filling in a card' are exactly the people an opt-out scheme is aimed at.
It's nowt to do with 'force'.
This argument about 'property rights' sums up modern society in general. Me me me.

An opt-out system = people don't own their own bodies. If you actually disagree with this, which you say you do, then you need to put your brain in gear. It's a completely ludicrous notion.

"It's nowt to do with force"? So how do you propose you enforce it? Please, at least acknowledge what is it is that you're proposing. If you don't then well you just come off as someone incapable of rational thought...

No need to get personal.

Parents, when registering the birth of their child, could state their preference.

Anyone, at any age and any time they wish, could opt-out by carrying a 'keep your hands of my precious body' card, phoning NHS or un-registering online.

The idea is WHEN YOU'RE DEAD YOUR BODY PARTS COULD BE USED TO SAVE SOMEBODY ELSE'S LIFE.
Using 'rational thought' i deduce that you have no use whatsoever for any part of your body after death.
Asking the next of kin if it's ok to use one of your bits, let's say a kidney, at the time of death can be distressing for them and the mediacl staff. In transplants time is of the essence and a short delay can mean the difference between life and death for those needing organ transplants.
Nobody is proposing that we allow your bits to be used when you're alive. It's about when you're dead, and that body you find so precious is of no use to you whatsoever. If anyone 'owns' it it's the worms.<br /><br />-- Wed Oct 06, 2010 8:57 am --<br /><br />no reply Elanjo ???

 

[ElanJo]

An opt-out system = people don't own their own bodies. If you actually disagree with this, which you say you do, then you need to put your brain in gear. It's a completely ludicrous notion.

"It's nowt to do with force"? So how do you propose you enforce it? Please, at least acknowledge what is it is that you're proposing. If you don't then well you just come off as someone incapable of rational thought...

No need to get personal.

Parents, when registering the birth of their child, could state their preference.

Anyone, at any age and any time they wish, could opt-out by carrying a 'keep your hands of my precious body' card, phoning NHS or un-registering online.

The idea is WHEN YOU'RE DEAD YOUR BODY PARTS COULD BE USED TO SAVE SOMEBODY ELSE'S LIFE.
Using 'rational thought' i deduce that you have no use whatsoever for any part of your body after death.
Asking the next of kin if it's ok to use one of your bits, let's say a kidney, at the time of death can be distressing for them and the mediacl staff. In transplants time is of the essence and a short delay can mean the difference between life and death for those needing organ transplants.
Nobody is proposing that we allow your bits to be used when you're alive. It's about when you're dead, and that body you find so precious is of no use to you whatsoever. If anyone 'owns' it it's the worms.

-- Wed Oct 06, 2010 8:57 am --

no reply Elanjo ???

Indeed, no reply, seeing how I haven't been on BM for a couple of days ;)

Parents deciding at birth isn't really an opt-out system... but it's no better if it's binding for life. They don't own the childs body. An argument could be made that should the son or daughter die whilst a child then it's up to the parents to decide, since the son or daughter was too young to do it themselves, but, like I said, that's not an opt-out system.

Yes, it's rational to acknowledge that once you're dead your body is of no use to you and thus may aswell go towards saving someone else's life. That's one thing. But it's entirely different to say to someone "you don't own your body" because you want more organ donations. If you want more organ donations then do something to help make it a public (not government) issue. Obvious start would be adverts...

I'm on your side when it comes to your end goal but I'd stand against you in your strategy to achieve that goal.

It's a joke for someone to want outcome X because it's a morally good outcome and yet go about making X a reality using highly immoral (and, not to forget, entirely ludicrous and, in the end, logically self-defeating) means.