Mandatory Organ Donation - General

[QUOTE=Nat114;39490820]Couldn't it be argued that having a mandatory organ donation program would increase the risk of people being murdered for their organs?[/QUOTE] The recipient would be decided by some process far, far removed from any influence the murderer could possibly have; the organs would either be put into the jurisdiction of a hospital selected through some sort of priority process, or checked into a local health board registry and then distributed from there. It's not like if you kill somebody you get to loot their kidneys and it's legal

[QUOTE=Maloof?;39486101]I chose to be a donor when I got my restricted driving license, but when I go for my full license I think I'll be removing my donor status. I'm not particularly religious; my family never has been. I'm agnostic if anything, but I don't believe in any gods. On a very personal level it just feels 'right' to me to be buried as a whole. If there was somebody I knew well and cared about lots, then I'd be happy to give them an organ. But otherwise it's all staying with me.[/QUOTE] I really never understood this attitude at all. Patients die waiting on organ donation lists because people want to make sure there's another useless hunk of flesh rotting away inside them. It's like directly having the option to feed a starving person, but then choosing to let it decompose in the ground instead.

[QUOTE=MazerRackham;39487244]But the state isn't making this decision for you. An opt-out system doesn't force anyone into anything they aren't comfortable with and would go a long way towards fighting the apathy that made you refuse to be an organ donor yourself. The excuse people seem to use most often has nothing to do with religion or personal freedom so much as the idea itself making them uncomfortable, and that's what needs to change.[/QUOTE] The poster I was replying to seemed to suggest it should be mandatory not opt out. That said if the idea of donating organs makes people uncomfortable that is not apathy. Apathy is being uncaring, I would suggest that feeling unnerved enough by the suggestion of donating your organs to not tick the donate box is caring. The unnerving feeling as you put it I would say IS a personal freedom. What you're describing seems to be people who just can't be bothered to sign up because they maybe don't want a drivers license and so don't fill out a "Organ donations Yes/no" question or however their country normally asks people. I would say that Opt out is the state making the decision for you, sure you can later change your mind and get yourself removed from said list but there would be a social and moral pressure to not which I don't think is fair. It also introduces the problem of people who may be too young to get themselves removed from the donation list or who's information cannot be found before they die (people without identity cards etc). While these problems could easily be solved by saying that children or their parents can decide for them and that if no information can be found then no action can be taken I am sure that it would cause more problems in law cases etc from disgruntled families or previously estranged family who find out after death that their loved one appeared to have their choice made for them. For this reason I don't think it'd be beneficial to operate an opt out system. Funding for synthetic and mechanical solutions I feel would be a much better long term solution especially as it doesn't rely on the rate of death remaining constant. [editline]6th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Josef Stalin;39487576]How do your personal wishes have more ethical importance than the right of another to live? This is a debate. You can't just say mandatory organ donation is bad because it goes against your wishes, you also have to explain why your wishes are worthy of being respected.[/quote] I can. It goes against my wishes because I don't like the idea of it happening that is enough of a reason for anyone to stop asking me to donate. Just because my reasoning doesn't seem to have enough backing to your desire doesn't matter. If it makes it easier for you just substitute it with "because god" I am not religious but if Jehovah witnesses can refuse blood transfusions etc someone who isn't religious should be able to do the same thing for their personal reasons. [quote] The emotional comfort found by people that chose to donate their organs is irrelevant, as is the comfort you find in denying ill or injured people the chance to live. If I chose to donate my organs after my death, this has a definite, certain and measurable benefit to anyone who receives my organs. Any peace I may find in this is irrelevant in argument. Your side, how has a measurable and certain negative impact -- the loss of life that could've been prevented. Once again, emotion has nothing to do with it. Argument on the basis of emotion isn't valid.[/quote] Funnily enough causing emotional harm is still seen as a crime and is completely recognized by the law as a defense for actions such as murder. For example if you kill the person your wife is cheating with because you find them in your bedroom then the court will accept this as a mitigating circumstance. The fact that you want to ignore emotion doesn't matter because it is important to society as a whole. The fact that you put words into my mouth and claim that I enjoy depriving others of life shows exactly that you are unable to be a fair judge on this matter because you've already decided that my point of view is shit and therefore should be ignored. [quote]I understand anti-authoritarianism is rather fashionable these days, but can you justify your claim? Why is it wrong? If anything, this is the exact sort of descision best put in the hands of the state, for the state isn't concerned with the petty if's and's and but's that characterize topics such as these. Mind you I'm not justifying the existence of the state, but the statist argument makes for a good refutation of yours.[/quote] Because of your exact arguments and point of view shows why. The state is cold and the people who work for it become detached from the reality of the decisions they're making. Like you they don't think about the individuals but the overall economy or society's path. In this POV there doesn't seem to be room for consideration that some people don't care if society progresses because well society is the most important thing I guess..? The less power and decisions the government makes the better. The larger and more encompassing it becomes the higher the danger of corruptibility and the harder it becomes for the individual to fight against it in legal front or any other for that matter. Obviously a balance must be struck to provide safety nets for those who are unemployed or to provide healthcare etc but I don't see why my body should suddenly stop being 'my' property and become that of the state on my death. [quote] Weather or not we should, for instance, use aborted fetuses for stem cell research (...oh right) or chop off the limbs of the cripple next door isn't what we're arguing. Keep on topic, please. [url]http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html[/url][/QUOTE] Well done you know argument fallacies woo hoo. The problem is it doesn't matter if my argument is a slippery slope people will still use it to argue this point. And to enact such a large change in law you would hope that a majority vote would be needed by the public. Many of whom aren't going to look at the above point and call it a slippery slope fallacy but might agree.

[QUOTE=Josef Stalin;39490891]I think his argument is "well I might be a murder, but the person's already dead, might as well take the organs". Needless to say this is pretty unrealistic, and could be prevented easily as well, similar to how life insurance companies don't pay out on suicide.[/QUOTE] I think he means is that if mandatory donation did exist then people (that need an organ) will hire hit men to get others killed in hopes of getting the deceased's organs.

Sure, why throw that crap away? In my book, religious and cultural arguments are invalid if it's about saving lives. So what, you've upset someone's superstitious believes in order to provide a donor organ for a dying patient. And if everyone is a donor, noone will have to be paranoid about morally confused doctors snatching precious donor organs.

[QUOTE=Titann;39495929]The poster I was replying to seemed to suggest it should be mandatory not opt out. That said if the idea of donating organs makes people uncomfortable that is not apathy. Apathy is being uncaring, I would suggest that feeling unnerved enough by the suggestion of donating your organs to not tick the donate box is caring. The unnerving feeling as you put it I would say IS a personal freedom. What you're describing seems to be people who just can't be bothered to sign up because they maybe don't want a drivers license and so don't fill out a "Organ donations Yes/no" question or however their country normally asks people. I would say that Opt out is the state making the decision for you, sure you can later change your mind and get yourself removed from said list but there would be a social and moral pressure to not which I don't think is fair. It also introduces the problem of people who may be too young to get themselves removed from the donation list or who's information cannot be found before they die (people without identity cards etc). While these problems could easily be solved by saying that children or their parents can decide for them and that if no information can be found then no action can be taken I am sure that it would cause more problems in law cases etc from disgruntled families or previously estranged family who find out after death that their loved one appeared to have their choice made for them. For this reason I don't think it'd be beneficial to operate an opt out system. Funding for synthetic and mechanical solutions I feel would be a much better long term solution especially as it doesn't rely on the rate of death remaining constant.[/QUOTE] Letting people die so as to avoid discomfort sounds very much like apathy to me. That may sound harsh but what we're talking about is a way to save lives that costs you neither money nor pain, and has literally no effect on your life. I agree that compulsory organ donation is a dangerous thing, not as a slippery slope or due to risk of abuse but as a matter of personal freedom. But in matters like this where there's a very clear definition of what would provide the greatest benefit for the most people, I think there [U]should [/U]be social and moral pressure. As for protecting the wishes of family members, in the countries that I'm aware of currently operating under the opt-out system your family has the right to refuse organ donation in the event of someone not having opted out previously. We're not talking about some evil conglomerate harvesting livers here, the only reason this is done is to help people and save lives.

Here's the part I'm not getting about the opposition to mandatory organ donation after death: You say it's disrespectful to the dead, ect... Why should anyone give a damn? I'd desecrate every corpse on Earth if it meant saving someones life. What makes your corpse so special?

I think organ donation [I]should[/I] be mandatory. It's perhaps the most selfless thing you can possibly do, and it can directly save someone's life. It's pointless and selfish to say, [I]"I want to die whole and be buried whole."[/I] because it will make no difference when your body decomposes and leaves your skeleton behind. You're not using them when you're dead. Don't be selfish, and possibly cause someone's death.

I'd be fine with it. It's not like I'm using the organs after I die

You don't own your body after you die, you aren't even there. You shouldn't be able to choose what happens to what's left of you after you die IMO. It's selfish to deny someone a valid organ transplant out of you wanting your body to end up in the ground intact.

respect the dead's wishes, else they'll royally screw with you and haunt you, unless that person was an athiest, cas then your 100% in the clear its just human tradition to respect the wishes of the deceased also just cas you died, doesn't mean your organs are viable for transplant IE: 70 year old dies of liver failure, but his heart isn't in any better shape

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39477506]They don't do this, and they don't use poor or faulty organs either. I think mandatory donations should be done, mainly because you cease to exist when you die, and no harm is done to you when something is done to your dead body. Burying somebody is very odd in itself. You put somebody underground to rot and forget about them. That doesn't seem like a good way to be remembered.[/QUOTE] By that same logic necrophilia should be legal then. "You cease to exist when you die, why should you care if someone has sex with your corpse? No harm is done to you when someone has sex with your dead body." [editline]6th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=basoro;39500647]You don't own your body after you die, you aren't even there. You shouldn't be able to choose what happens to what's left of you after you die IMO. It's selfish to deny someone a valid organ transplant out of you wanting your body to end up in the ground intact.[/QUOTE] Again, necrophilia.

[QUOTE=draugur;39501032]By that same logic necrophilia should be legal then. "You cease to exist when you die, why should you care if someone has sex with your corpse? No harm is done to you when someone has sex with your dead body." [editline]6th February 2013[/editline] Again, necrophilia.[/QUOTE] Your necrophilia argument isn't on even ground because with organ donation, somebody else is benefiting and you're essentially saving someone's life. Necrophilia does no good to anybody.

I've never seen any problem with this. At the moment, people only donate if they care enough to opt in. Switching it around would mean that people who don't want their organs taken will opt out. If you don't really care what happens, why can't your organs be used? So long as it's simple to opt out and people know how things stand, what's the problem?

You should not be forced to donate your organs after you die. That is YOUR choice. There are plenty of other donors out there.

I think all citizens of a country should be organ donors by default and not mandatory, since mandatory implies a no choice scenario. Then the citizens would have a choice whether they want to keep their organs after death. My experience is that many people do not even consider this or if they do, don't sign up for it. So ultimately their organs go to waste, when they could've help some other person in desperate need for said organ.

[QUOTE=Umbra Fidelis;39506782]I think all citizens of a country should be organ donors by default and not mandatory, since mandatory implies a no choice scenario. Then the citizens would have a choice whether they want to keep their organs after death. My experience is that many people do not even consider this or if they do, don't sign up for it. So ultimately their organs go to waste, when they could've help some other person in desperate need for said organ.[/QUOTE] I can fully agree. If you don't specify anything, it is good to have your organs go to medicine research.

[QUOTE=Umbra Fidelis;39506782]I think all citizens of a country should be organ donors by default and not mandatory, since mandatory implies a no choice scenario. Then the citizens would have a choice whether they want to keep their organs after death. My experience is that many people do not even consider this or if they do, don't sign up for it. So ultimately their organs go to waste, when they could've help some other person in desperate need for said organ.[/QUOTE] You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that it should be completely mandatory, just that, when the time comes for them to take the organs from your corpse, if you don't say anything about it then it is assumed to be okay.

Yeah I don't understand the hangup. Frankly I don't even see how your body can be treated as "property" after you're dead. You made no significant contribution to the evolutionary process, you didn't even grow the organs voluntarily so how they hell do you "own" them. I mean with a television or something you can at least say you voluntarily worked for it and paid for it, but with the matter in your body it just exists by necessity and grows via automated process. Your family can't do anything with you other than essentially throw you away in a ceremonious manner (which they can [I]still do[/I] after organ donation) or fucking [I]eat you[/I] I guess, those are really the only two options that exist in regards to acquiring a dead body. It's not so much a matter of it being "mandatory" as it is being "default," obviously if some asshole takes extreme offense at the fact that the matter in their [I]dead[/i] body can be used to preserve the life of another [I]living[/I] human being that they should still be able to easily opt out, but frankly I think the majority of people wouldn't mind donating organs in the first place, so why not just have it as the default? It can be taken at face value that most people don't care enough about the issue to actually go out and sign up to be an organ doner, so if they go out and get hit by a car or something, then there was no final say in whether or not the matter in their dead body can be used to help a living person, and it should be by default if they never cared in the first place. "Rights of the dead" in matters like this are ridiculous. At what point in time did we reach the level that the rights of a dead body surpass the rights of a living human?

[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;39485826]Because people will be people and you should respect their decisions to not do something they don't want to happen to them. I'm an organ donor because I don't care if they take my body parts for somebody but I don't see how you can decide what's best for somebody else - force-ably doing that to somebody means you're just being disrespectful.[/QUOTE] Isn't this just standard liberal "agree to disagree" bunk? If there's one ting I hate it's when people have been trained to be so uncertain in their own opinions that they're afraid what would happen if their opinions were the law of the land. Appeals to respect, tradition, etc. are useless!

I honestly don't understand people who say they want to be 'buried whole'. I just cannot comprehend it. You are dead. Does that sink in? You're not in a coma, you're not sleeping, you're dead. Your soul or mind or consciousness or whatever you want to call it is dead. You do not exist anymore and the only thing that's left behind you is your body. It [I]will[/I] go down six feet under and you [I]will[/I] rot until there's [I]nothing[/I] left. Why not save someone's life? Even if he's an alcoholic or a criminal or whatever. I just don't see any reason why you'd choose this egoistical option of 'being whole'. You're still dead.

Just take everything off me once i'm dead, I'm only gonna be cremated anyhoo but not the brain that doesn't sit well with me nor does donating organs while I'm still alive unless its someone i personally care about but liver and would be fine.

What if your organs are full of drugs, medicine, bad shit, and stuff? Someone could have a weak heart, or did smoke tobacco during his life, affecting his lungs? Obviously, you would answer: "They wouldn't take theses". But now that this is mandatory, they are forced to give them. :suicide:

[QUOTE=WaryLouka;39539719]What if your organs are full of drugs, medicine, bad shit, and stuff? Someone could have a weak heart, or did smoke tobacco during his life, affecting his lungs? Obviously, you would answer: "They wouldn't take theses". But now that this is mandatory, they are forced to give them. :suicide:[/QUOTE] This is makes zero sense and is completely wrong. a) Bad organs aren't taken - if you were a heavy drinker/smoker or a drug addict, they wouldn't take your organs. b) Mandatory doesn't mean 'always'. c) Even if they [I]did[/I] take damaged organs, it'd still be better for the patient. What would you rather have? A smoker's lung or no lung at all?

[QUOTE=draugur;39501032]By that same logic necrophilia should be legal then. "You cease to exist when you die, why should you care if someone has sex with your corpse? No harm is done to you when someone has sex with your dead body." [editline]6th February 2013[/editline] Again, necrophilia.[/QUOTE] Well, why don't you explain what's morally wrong with necrophilia then?

[QUOTE=DrTaxi;39540522]Well, why don't you explain what's morally wrong with necrophilia then?[/QUOTE] Desecrating a grave is generally regarded as disrespectful.

[QUOTE=CloaknDagger;39522652]You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that it should be completely mandatory, just that, when the time comes for them to take the organs from your corpse, if you don't say anything about it then it is assumed to be okay.[/QUOTE] I wasn't replying to you.

Why do people want to be buried "whole" after their death? The body won't stay in one piece anyway and serves no purpose to anyone directly. If it won't be repurposed by humans, it will be repurposed by nature. Technically you don't stay in one piece in your life either. You constantly shed dead parts of you and replace them with new ones from stuff that before had a life of its own. If you incidentally die by, say exploding, it has no consequence to you. Necrophilia isn't in my opinion morally analogous, because sexuality is such a taboo it brings a whole new level of moral complications that have nothing to do with organ donation, its purpose is not to heal, it has practical complications regarding the ways we deal with the dead, it's a wide and scarcely researched subject and because it often stems from a mental illness.

[QUOTE=Funky Pickle;39545387]Desecrating a grave is generally regarded as disrespectful.[/QUOTE] Why should we respect a lifeless pile of meat though? That's not the person who lived in that body anymore.

[QUOTE=Quark:;39500239]I think organ donation [I]should[/I] be mandatory. It's perhaps the most selfless thing you can possibly do, and it can directly save someone's life. It's pointless and selfish to say, [I]"I want to die whole and be buried whole."[/I] because it will make no difference when your body decomposes and leaves your skeleton behind. You're not using them when you're dead. Don't be selfish, and possibly cause someone's death.[/QUOTE] They are not causing anyone's death. And it's not selfish. Especially not when it's only done to prolong someone's unhealthy lifestyle for a few years longer at the cost of thousands and thousands.