Mandatory Organ Donation - General

So if no one can own a corpse, how can decisions such as method or location of burial can be legally made on it's behalf?

[QUOTE=Captain Lawlrus;34454922]So if no one can own a corpse, how can decisions such as method or location of burial can be legally made on it's behalf?[/QUOTE] What makes you think you need to own a corpse to be able to do that.

it annoys me so much that people think you need to own something to use it. I've written a couple of essays on the idea in my political theory module; Locke's whole "his nourishment therefore his apple" bullshit argument. It's so painfully illogical and full of such false equivocations.

[QUOTE=Captain Lawlrus;34454697]Why should I have to put forth unnecessary effort to prevent the government from robbing my corpse when those who would rather voluntarily desecrate their corpse for the sake of others can currently opt to do so with little effort?[/QUOTE] Robbing your corpse? But when you die, [i]you[/i] no longer exist and therefore can't claim ownership over the deceased body that was formerly yours. As far as the whole "desecration" thing goes that is just a social construct and does not seem (correct me if I'm wrong) to constitute any valid logical reason to waste perfectly good organs by burying them under 6 feet of dirt or burning them to ashes. Organs that could help save people's lives are going to waste because of this mental block of "eww its gross!" that society has created.

A point must be a made, you do not exist after you die. In the flesh, yes, however your mind has ceased.

I think this is a good idea. Just, when I die you better make sure im fucking dead, because if I wake up and someone is scooping out my kidneys or something im gonna beat some ass.

[QUOTE=Captain Lawlrus;34454697]Why should I have to put forth unnecessary effort to prevent the government from robbing my corpse when those who would rather voluntarily desecrate their corpse for the sake of others can currently opt to do so with little effort?[/QUOTE] Desecration is a social construct. Some cultures eat their dead (or parts of their dead) for various reasons: perhaps they wish to carry a part of people they cherish with them forever? Perhaps they wish to gain their strength? Hell it could even be a sign of respect towards those who are dead... I guess some people would rather be eaten by men than by worms. Your point is not valid or logically sound.

I'm a registered organ donor, except for my eyes and skin. Those parts of me are not leaving, I at least want to look like a normal person in the grave. It really should be the person's choice, but everyone should be motivated to donate their organs. I know I tell my friends that I think that it's a good idea.

[QUOTE=OogalaBoogal;34457832]I'm a registered organ donor, except for my eyes and skin. Those parts of me are not leaving, I at least want to look like a normal person in the grave. It really should be the person's choice, but everyone should be motivated to donate their organs. I know I tell my friends that I think that it's a good idea.[/QUOTE] This, you can have my insides but I want to keep my eyes (and to a lesser degree skin).

I wonder how many of you would be happy to accept organs. Hypothetical situation: Your liver has failed, but they are keeping you alive with machines. If you do not get a transplant (within the next few days) you will die. Guy on the bed next to you is a perfect match and CAN give you the liver. The guy is definitely going to die in a few minutes. He can talk and make a decision. The cause of death has no effect on the liver. If that guy said no, you would hate him. Yet you are happy to do the same to someone just because you want everything to rot. That is hypocritical. What about an opt out system in which you opt out of both donation and receiving an organ. With exceptions for those with medical conditions which mean that their organs would be unsuitable. People's view on organ donation changes entirely as soon as someone they care about needs it. On my situation. I cannot yet register as an organ donor because I am under 18 and I haven't talked to my parents about it because that would be... weird. "Hey, Mum, if I die can you make sure the doctors take my organs?" Last thing: [URL="http://www.cracked.com/article_16858_the-6-coolest-things-you-can-do-with-your-dead-body.html"]http://www.cracked.com/article_16858_the-6-coolest-things-you-can-do-with-your-dead-body.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;34462958]I wonder how many of you would be happy to accept organs. Hypothetical situation: Your liver has failed, but they are keeping you alive with machines. If you do not get a transplant (within the next few days) you will die. Guy on the bed next to you is a perfect match and CAN give you the liver. The guy is definitely going to die in a few minutes. He can talk and make a decision. The cause of death has no effect on the liver. If that guy said no, you would hate him. Yet you are happy to do the same to someone just because you want everything to rot. That is hypocritical. What about an opt out system in which you opt out of both donation and receiving an organ. With exceptions for those with medical conditions which mean that their organs would be unsuitable. People's view on organ donation changes entirely as soon as someone they care about needs it. On my situation. I cannot yet register as an organ donor because I am under 18 and I haven't talked to my parents about it because that would be... weird. "Hey, Mum, if I die can you make sure the doctors take my organs?" Last thing: [URL="http://www.cracked.com/article_16858_the-6-coolest-things-you-can-do-with-your-dead-body.html"]http://www.cracked.com/article_16858_the-6-coolest-things-you-can-do-with-your-dead-body.html[/URL][/QUOTE] It shouldn't be that weird. First thing I did when I heard about organ donation was make sure my parents understood that I wanted to donate my organs should I die before I was 18.

[QUOTE=Rhinovirus;34383084]Due to the selfish and conceded nature of many individuals, many whom require transplants remain largely neglected and without ample support for their debilitating conditions. Thus, I contend there exist a moral obligation, whereby we require of ourselves and our government to enforce the proposed resolution, An opt-out system, whereby by default, all individuals are to be harvested for their organs in death unless otherwise requested. Based on statistical evidence, it is clear that those who choose to be harvested have helped those in need. Around 100 people die each year in Australia while waiting for an organ transplant and over the past ten years the organ donor rate has remained static – approximately 10 donors per million population. Almost 100,000 current individuals need life-saving organ transplants in which would otherwise be filled if this obligation were fulfilled. Those who are deceased do not have legal rights, which should include the wild claim that they own their organs. In conclusion, [b]I submit that we have a moral obligation to be harvested of our organs in death and that the government should adopt an opt-out system previously mentioned.[/b] I challenge anyone to submit a compelling argument that counters this. sources [url]http://donatelife.net/[/url] [url]http://www.organdonors.com.au/organ-donors-articles/[/url][/QUOTE] We have a moral obligation to honour the dead and their grieving family and we have no right to claim that they are obligated to give us anything once they have passed. Especially if they died early, you're desecrating their body forcibly. In ancient times, just the thought of dissecting a body would be considered blasphemy and you'd be executed for it. This is one thing that can only be willing and while it's unfortunate that some people need transplants, you can't forcibly harvest organs from dead people. That's extremely disrespectful and it's an invasion of the person's privacy.

[QUOTE=Tukimoshi;34467232]We have a moral obligation to honour the dead and their grieving family and we have no right to claim that they are obligated to give us anything once they have passed. Especially if they died early, you're desecrating their body forcibly. In ancient times, just the thought of dissecting a body would be considered blasphemy and you'd be executed for it. This is one thing that can only be willing and while it's unfortunate that some people need transplants, you can't forcibly harvest organs from dead people. That's extremely disrespectful and it's an invasion of the person's privacy.[/QUOTE] What part of opt-out do you not understand? If people have the opportunity to opt-out then by not opting out you agree to donating your organs thus it's not forcibly.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;34467298]What part of opt-out do you not understand? If people have the opportunity to opt-out then by not opting out you agree to donating your organs thus it's not forcibly.[/QUOTE] Sorry, I missed that part. Still, I feel that in the case of someone not voluntarily opting to have their organs harvested, it should be up their families out of respect.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;34409799] Why should we stop at mere organ harvesting? Why not grind the bones into supplements and industrial products? Skin them and convert their hides into leather for boots and wallets? Pulp whatever remains into fertilizer? Hell if they're healthy and lack any blood-borne/nervous disorders we can filet them and sell it as food to the hungry (a real-world Soylent Green in this case.)[/QUOTE] Sounds good, when I die, I don't want a single part of me wasted if possible. Also what would be nicer than some antique to pass on to your grand-kids than a pair of boots and a wallet made of your own skin. (I'm not sure how seriously I'm being here, I like the idea of giving it, but don't like the idea of receiving it, I suppose it's because I'd be remembered - for being completely bonkers)

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;34467298]What part of opt-out do you not understand? If people have the opportunity to opt-out then by not opting out you agree to donating your organs thus it's not forcibly.[/QUOTE] Again, this implies the state has [I]natural ownership[/I] over your body unless explicitly stated otherwise. A Will is there to essentially represent your interests beyond the grave as though you still exist. We don't live in some Huxelian World State where people casually extract every useful nutrient out of your corpse because, believe it or not some people don't exactly like that idea.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34454204] What the fuck does mandatory organ donation have to do with god damn mathematics?[/QUOTE] "Life is maths and maths is life" Dr N. Davies

[QUOTE=Tukimoshi;34467232]We have a moral obligation to honour the dead and their grieving family and we have no right to claim that they are obligated to give us anything once they have passed. Especially if they died early, you're desecrating their body forcibly. In ancient times, just the thought of dissecting a body would be considered blasphemy and you'd be executed for it. This is one thing that can only be willing and while it's unfortunate that some people need transplants, you can't forcibly harvest organs from dead people. That's extremely disrespectful and it's an invasion of the person's privacy.[/QUOTE] corpses don't have privacy full stop. it's only disrespectful as far as social norms go, and social norms are by and large fucking stupid, especially the ones that actively put restrictions on people's lifespans. it makes absolutely no difference to me whatsoever what is done with my corpse. just none.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;34468301]Again, this implies the state has [I]natural ownership[/I] over your body unless explicitly stated otherwise. A Will is there to essentially represent your interests beyond the grave as though you still exist. We don't live in some Huxelian World State where people casually extract every useful nutrient out of your corpse because, believe it or not some people don't exactly like that idea.[/QUOTE] Again, no one owns a corpse, and again, what makes you think that the state handles organ donation?

Will gladly donate my organs when I die. I don't need them, and if it will help somebody else out, then hell take them all.

Oh good, I thought this thread was going to be about mandatory organ donation WHILE YOUR STILL ALIVE. No, after death it really doesn't make a difference. I mean, what does it matter? If your religious I suppose it could mean something, but if your Agnostic like me it doesn't matter. Then again, if your a Non-believer like me, you might not believe in the afterlife, so that could complicate things. I'd like to just opt to stay alive forever, and people who die will have their organs taken since it's not like they're using them. In death, they will save lives. Why should 100s of people die because someone felt their liver needed to rot in the ground? Or even be set on fire so it can be thrown into the ocean?

i dont really want an nurse to take my heart out while im still awake

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;34467298]What part of opt-out do you not understand? If people have the opportunity to opt-out then by not opting out you agree to donating your organs thus it's not forcibly.[/QUOTE] If you are going to have an opt out system then you had damn well make sure everyone knows about it so they can choose whether they want to or not.

I am Christian and would like to be an organ donator. I don't believe it's against any form of Christianity.

[QUOTE=Rhinovirus;34383084]Due to the selfish and conceded nature of many individuals, many whom require transplants remain largely neglected and without ample support for their debilitating conditions. Thus, I contend there exist a moral obligation, whereby we require of ourselves and our government to enforce the proposed resolution, An opt-out system, whereby by default, all individuals are to be harvested for their organs in death unless otherwise requested. Based on statistical evidence, it is clear that those who choose to be harvested have helped those in need. Around 100 people die each year in Australia while waiting for an organ transplant and over the past ten years the organ donor rate has remained static – approximately 10 donors per million population. Almost 100,000 current individuals need life-saving organ transplants in which would otherwise be filled if this obligation were fulfilled. Those who are deceased do not have legal rights, which should include the wild claim that they own their organs. In conclusion, I submit that we have a moral obligation to be harvested of our organs in death and that the government should adopt an opt-out system previously mentioned. I challenge anyone to submit a compelling argument that counters this. sources [url]http://donatelife.net/[/url] [url]http://www.organdonors.com.au/organ-donors-articles/[/url][/QUOTE] Very interesting points there, but I am afraid I cannot see your point, so you are telling me that a corpse has no rights? So if it has not should it not be treated with respect? Let me give you a scenario, a man was kind, he donated many things in his life, but he wished that his body be kept intact. If a dead corpse have no rights, what rights do you have to it. If you do, please tell me how. Was it not his body, was it not his that he used and was born with, and we are rich and poor in this world, but we do have one thing which is our bodies. Why cannot our last wish ALIVE which albeits us full rights to our body be not kept the way we want to?

I'm not opposed to people donating organs, but mandatory donations are a bad idea. Many religions do not believe in organ donation, and so do many cultures. I myself am not a donor due to the fact that I have a paranoid fear of doctors stealing my organs, and I'm pretty sure no one wants my fucked up liver or my fucked up digestive system.

[QUOTE=Moustacheman;39477472]I myself am not a donor due to the fact that I have a paranoid fear of doctors stealing my organs, and I'm pretty sure no one wants my fucked up liver or my fucked up digestive system.[/QUOTE] 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=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] Well then, I can't donate anyways if they don't use faulty organs. As for burial, it started a long, long time ago as a form of disposing of the body. Ceremonial burials came about during the Mesopotamian era, but were not popular until the Egyptians.

[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] I for one don't want to be buried I prefer to be created into to compost.

Assumption of rights leaves whomever is doing the assuming in a very, [i]very[/i] vulnerable position in law. While the opt-out would in theory work, you would have to have the State, or whomever constructs the database, provide a Notice of Intent, Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure, and a final Notice of Default - Even then, the assumption exists only as long as nobody, or no thing, objects. That being said, I think mandatory organ donation is quite horrifying. I appreciate the need of some to be selfless, and that is indeed a very nice thing to do and I applaud you for it, but it's not for you, the State, or anyone else to decide what happens to me. After death, Natural Law would most likely be in favor of mandatory donation. However, Estate Law, which would take precedence, allows for the existence of an Estate of [i]any[/i] form (Be it your body, a Letter of Intent for your possessions, or whatever) to continue past its deceasing for a total of seven years. You would first have to revoke various components of Estate Law to be able to implement an actual law in favor of these mandatory donations. Besides (speaking as an American), my country was founded on the ideal of Free Choice. To infringe upon that is to infringe upon humanity.