Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

Opt Out or In? (Organ Donation)

This thread is sponsored by:
Announcements Posted on
  • View Poll Results: Should organ donation be...
    Opt In
    43
    31.85%
    Opt out
    87
    64.44%
    Don't care
    5
    3.70%
    Abolished
    0
    0%

    • 32 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    Did you fail to notice that this logic can be used as an argument for the current opt-in system: "that way, the people who actually care so much about donating their organs at death can opt-in, and those who don't give a flying monkey about donating can remain off the list"?

    There is a good argument for opening up a market in organs. There was a lecture about it at my university, but I didn't go unfortunately.
    Yes, but there are too many people dying each year because of a lack of organs: 3 people die everyday due to a lack of organs (in the UK alone), and have you seen how long the waiting list is for a kidney transplant?

    At least with an opt-out system, the people who don't care about their organs (at death) will save lives. With an opt-in system, the organs of the people who don't care will be wasted, and people, whose lives would otherwise have been saved, will die due to an organ shortage.

    Also, if an organ donor decides to donate all organs, 8 people's lives could potentially be saved. If that person opted out, 8 people could potentially die.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Organ donation can be a stressful time for family of the critically ill or deceased, especially when a lot of people don't seem to know that few life-saving organs can actually be retrieved from an already deceased body, and involves using what they call 'beating donors'. This is where the person is actually still alive physically (i.e. heartbeat but no brain function) in order to obtain working organs. This can be highly stressful on the family, because even though the person is clinically dead (no brain function), they are still breathing and appear to be alive. When they're still sat beside a breathing loved one before the organ harvesting operations and returned afterwards dead, it can cause a lot of distress.

    I believe donating organs is a gift and should remain that way. An opt-out system implies that our own bodies are not actually ours by default, but the government's, which is entirely wrong.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by brightonlad89)
    Organ donation can be a stressful time for family of the critically ill or deceased, especially when a lot of people don't seem to know that few life-saving organs can actually be retrieved from an already deceased body, and involves using what they call 'beating donors'. This is where the person is actually still alive physically (i.e. heartbeat but no brain function) in order to obtain working organs. This can be highly stressful on the family, because even though the person is clinically dead (no brain function), they are still breathing and appear to be alive. When they're still sat beside a breathing loved one before the organ harvesting operations and returned afterwards dead, it can cause a lot of distress.

    I believe donating organs is a gift and should remain that way. An opt-out system implies that our own bodies are not actually ours by default, but the government's, which is entirely wrong.
    Not really, it more implies an assumption that everyone, given the opportunity, would want to help another human being.

    If you really don't want to do so, the opt-out forms would be freely available, but why not make the default position that of helping your fellow human beings. I realise it can be stressful for the family, but think of it this way:

    With opt out, one family is put under some extra stress, but in the end, their loved one dies either way.

    With opt in, two families lose a loved one.

    Which would you prefer?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrisawhitmore)
    Not really, it more implies an assumption that everyone, given the opportunity, would want to help another human being.

    If you really don't want to do so, the opt-out forms would be freely available, but why not make the default position that of helping your fellow human beings. I realise it can be stressful for the family, but think of it this way:

    With opt out, one family is put under some extra stress, but in the end, their loved one dies either way.

    With opt in, two families lose a loved one.

    Which would you prefer?
    I don't think it's entirely relevant to bring emotional thought into it, as obviously saving someone's life is a good thing, but the government is relying upon emotional rather than rational thought to cover the implications of this.

    If, by default, your body parts belong to the State unless you opt-out is completely and utterly wrong and reduces it from being an amazing gift, to being a governmental right to utilise bodies of the dead.

    I completely and utterly agree with donating organs to those who want them to prolong life, but not at the expense of public freedoms.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by brightonlad89)
    I don't think it's entirely relevant to bring emotional thought into it, as obviously saving someone's life is a good thing, but the government is relying upon emotional rather than rational thought to cover the implications of this.

    If, by default, your body parts belong to the State unless you opt-out is completely and utterly wrong and reduces it from being an amazing gift, to being a governmental right to utilise bodies of the dead.

    I completely and utterly agree with donating organs to those who want them to prolong life, but not at the expense of public freedoms.
    Again, I think that as long as the opt out process is made freely available and easy to do, there is not a real issue, because the distinction between an 'amazing gift' and a 'governmental right' in non-emotional terms is simply a reduction in the number of people killed by the laziness of others.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Schemes like this seem to be the solution rather than the dreadfully Orwellian idea of presumed consent.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I'm for the opt-in side. A person's body is a person's body, and if they don't want to have their organs donated when they pass on that's up to them.

    What I do think needs to change, isn't the system but how it's advertised. Perhaps have an automatic letter sent out when each person turns 18, asking them to sign up to the organ donation scheme and information/leaflets about the scheme, what it does, what is needed included in the letter and displayed in doctors offices. Also it could be talked about in schools during health/p.e lessons etc.

    If more people know about it, and everyone is presented with the choice at a certain age, then more people would probably sign up for it.

    I'm on the register because it was included in my driver's licence form, but not everyone gets a licene the minute they turn 17, and there's not much information about on the form.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Opt-in. Consent should never be presumed.

    That said, there needs to be more awareness of donation. On applications for driving licences, passports etc it should always be included. Hand out leaflets with prescriptions. Get GPs to ask at appointments (they're always asking me if I smoke whenever I see them for instance, or ask me whether I would consider getting a more permanent contraceptive like the implant, surely including "Are you on the organ donor list" wouldn't take much more time and won't cost anything!)

    Also (it's petty I know) this whole "people die of a lack of organs" - no they don't, unless they were born without one. People die because they have cirrhosis, or kidney failure, or heart disease etc. Sometimes I find it all a bit grotesque, the way people are waiting for someone else to die so that they or someone they love can live. I understand why you'd want that, but think of the other family who will have just lost someone. I just feel no matter how ill you are, noone has a right to someone elses body parts. They are a gift, and should be given freely, not just taken.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Has to be Opt-out.

    <3 x
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Should be opt out. If people really want their organs, then all they've got to do is say. If they cant be bothered to do that, then they obviously dont care that much.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    You'll be dead anyway, why not help somebody else since you no longer need them?
    If you don't want to donate for religious or just personal reasons, then you should opt out. I know plenty of people who would donate their organs but just haven't registered.
    If you're really that bothered about where your organs end up, then you'll make sure to opt out, but if you don't care, then they get put to good use anyway...
    • 4 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    Opt out.

    Also, anybody who does opt out should not be entitled to receive any organs, unless privately donated.

    If you're too selfish even in death to potentially help somebody else live then you shouldn't be able to benefit when the circumstances are reversed.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    opt in obviously

    lol at anyone who says otherwise
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Opt-in, definitely.
    Although opt-out seems more practical it's nice to have concent ... as the government should be well aware ...
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AgZarp)
    Opt in.
    What many seem to forget is that, though it no longer contains the person's conscience, the body should still be treated according to it's previous occupants wishes, and if someone wanted to donate organs they will opt in to do so.
    Of course an opt out system would still give many the option to keep their body intact, but an opt in method ensures organ donations only comes from those that want to do it.
    I respect your opinion, but I completely disagree. It took me one minute to sign up as an organ donor and it would take someone the same to opt out - if somebody is too lazy that is up to them (presuming it is well advertised and above board of course, so people don't get caught out). I think they should have an opt-out system, with all school children being given a formal choice (with the option to change their mind later of course) at, say, 16, or upon becoming a citizen if older.

    I understand what you say about the 'previous occupant', but honestly I think that a dead person's problems pale into insignificance next to saving somebody's life. People are calling it a loss of freedom, but that's hardly the case, and if it saves even one person's life I think it's worth it.
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by R.P.Everything.)
    However, I still find the notion of presumed consent extremely disturbing - the idea that the state owns your body by default seems distinctly authoritarian in nature. Now that really breaches a boundary.
    See, I find it more disturbing that you would let someone die over a minor 'boundaries' qualm in what is clearly a democratic country.

    I don't mean to be rude, and you are entitled to your opinion, but personally I don't think it means the state owns your body - it's not like they are free to do what they like with it, and it would take two seconds to opt out - and I think saving lives is more important.

    I do think a compulsory donation form could be a good compromise though, so long as it doesn't scare people off.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Octohedral)
    I respect your opinion, but I completely disagree. It took me one minute to sign up as an organ donor and it would take someone the same to opt out - if somebody is too lazy that is up to them (presuming it is well advertised and above board of course, so people don't get caught out). I think they should have an opt-out system, with all school children being given a formal choice (with the option to change their mind later of course) at, say, 16, or upon becoming a citizen if older.
    I agree entirely with the point about a formal choice for children aged 16 to encourage the number of organ donors. However, surely, it would be more right ethically to ask students to 'opt-in', rather than to presume consent and ask them to opt out? Those who want to donate organs will still sign up, and those who won't, still won't, but it just removes the default of 'The state owns your body'.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Octohedral)
    See, I find it more disturbing that you would let someone die over a minor 'boundaries' qualm in what is clearly a democratic country.

    I don't mean to be rude, and you are entitled to your opinion, but personally I don't think it means the state owns your body - it's not like they are free to do what they like with it, and it would take two seconds to opt out - and I think saving lives is more important.

    I do think a compulsory donation form could be a good compromise though, so long as it doesn't scare people off.

    The way I see it, an opt-in system with compulsory registration (on, or off the list) would save just as many lives as an opt-out system. Again, those who want to be on the list will still be on, and those who don't will still be off.

    The way you say that a compulsory form may 'scare people off' makes it almost seem like you want to dupe people into presumed consent, and ignore the choice of individuals to boost organ donor numbers. It is an unacceptable position for the state to presume consent - some people may not even know that the state owns their body, which is a huge breach of personal liberty.

    Yes, life saving is important, but it can be done through an improved opt-in system, rather than an ethically wrong opt-out system. The state should never hold the default position of owning someone's body, until they choose to opt out.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Otkem)
    This is yet another thing that shows we are living in an Orwellian dictatorship. I am on the organ donor register out of choice, but I would hate the thought that the government assumes ownership of my organs.
    but you can easily opt out, so whats the problem?
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by R.P.Everything.)
    The way I see it, an opt-in system with compulsory registration (on, or off the list) would save just as many lives as an opt-out system. Again, those who want to be on the list will still be on, and those who don't will still be off.

    The way you say that a compulsory form may 'scare people off' makes it almost seem like you want to dupe people into presumed consent, and ignore the choice of individuals to boost organ donor numbers. It is an unacceptable position for the state to presume consent - some people may not even know that the state owns their body, which is a huge breach of personal liberty.

    Yes, life saving is important, but it can be done through an improved opt-in system, rather than an ethically wrong opt-out system. The state should never hold the default position of owning someone's body, until they choose to opt out.
    Ha ha, I see what you mean, but all I meant was that if someone gets a form they may be scared off by the phrase 'organ donation', wheras if somebody sits them down and impartially explains the benefits and problems I believe they would be more likely to consent (because I believe organ donation is an amazing thing, and not properly understood).

    I'm not interested in duping people, I just want to help people who need help more than those that are already dead. I see your point though, and a compulsory form would certainly be better than the current system.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: May 20, 2012
New on TSR

Halloween 2014

Spooky tales from this year's fright night

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.