Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    Aye.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Aye, a much needed step. Anyone who opposes it on a personal level is welcome to opt out, regaining the "supports it, but didn't fill out the form" is vital.
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Why is being signed up to donate your organs, when you really don't mind, such a bad thing?
    Why should a person who doesn't want to surrender one's organs be required to take action in order to keep one's own body intact after death? If you want to trick people into letting you harvest their organs, go ahead and declare that the state owns the contents of their bodies, and see how they react. In both cases, the state exercises unacceptable power over individuals.

    I might be willing to support this if you use the census data to make this opt-out only for people of no religion and even that is a reluctant proposal.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Aye!
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Hear, hear!

    We've had this before, perhaps even twice over the past five years, and this is still my opinion.
    Twice in the last year

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Aye. Nobody owns their own body while alive - and it is beyond absurd to suggest that a dead person is capable of owning anything. The argument against presented so far is weak. Furthermore, this will save hundreds, if not thousands, of lives. Anyone voting against on the basis of 'property' is valuing the right to property above the right to life (neither of which I believe exist, but the latter is far more feasible than the former).
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Why should a person who doesn't want to surrender one's organs be required to take action in order to keep one's own body intact after death? If you want to trick people into letting you harvest their organs, go ahead and declare that the state owns the contents of their bodies, and see how they react. In both cases, the state exercises unacceptable power over individuals.
    The people of Wales have not reacted with any sort of revulsion to the imposition of an opt-out system.

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Twice in the last year
    Read the notes, this is in response to a motion passed. The likes of yourself were not long ago complaining that motions were not being acted upon...
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    The people of Wales have not reacted with any sort of revulsion to the imposition of an opt-out system.



    Read the notes, this is in response to a motion passed. The likes of yourself were not long ago complaining that motions were not being acted upon...
    So because you didn't act then you're deciding to act now? Something like a 4 month lag

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Because I think that a lot of people wouldn't think about it, and it's something that people should think about when making this decision.

    It is a classic example of how the affect of a box being ticked affects the outcome for the vast majority of people... If there's a default option, most people won't even think about it. People have to actively make the decision in a situation like this.

    I would much rather support something where there's incentive to make the decision, perhaps the following:

    When you register to vote, you cannot submit the form unless you have ticked either 'Yes' or 'No' - if you don't tick any, it won't submit. If you don't register to vote (something I believe everyone should do), then I'd probably be ok with saying, well then in that case, your organs can be donated.
    So you don't want apathetic people donating their bodies? While on the flip side you have more organs to transplant?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    This should be 100% compulsory anyway tbh.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So because you didn't act then you're deciding to act now? Something like a 4 month lag
    So it is. OK.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Why should a person who doesn't want to surrender one's organs be required to take action in order to keep one's own body intact after death? If you want to trick people into letting you harvest their organs, go ahead and declare that the state owns the contents of their bodies, and see how they react. In both cases, the state exercises unacceptable power over individuals.

    I might be willing to support this if you use the census data to make this opt-out only for people of no religion and even that is a reluctant proposal.
    Because you're dead and have no other use for them. Anyone who actively opposes donating their body will actively opt out anyway, the only people to "lose" in this scenario are people who get stuck in the bureaucracy of it, so I would consider your religious point as some progress.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Aye. Nobody owns their own body while alive - and it is beyond absurd to suggest that a dead person is capable of owning anything. The argument against presented so far is weak. Furthermore, this will save hundreds, if not thousands, of lives. Anyone voting against on the basis of 'property' is valuing the right to property above the right to life (neither of which I believe exist, but the latter is far more feasible than the former).
    So, anyone can just come up to me on the street and take me away because I don't, and presumably nobody owns me? Oh wait, yeh... that's called kidnap or abduction. Good luck getting that passed in a court of law.
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    So you don't want apathetic people donating their bodies? While on the flip side you have more organs to transplant?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Nope.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    So, anyone can just come up to me on the street and take me away because I don't, and presumably nobody owns me? Oh wait, yeh... that's called kidnap or abduction. Good luck getting that passed in a court of law.
    Strawman. Kidnap and abduction are rightly criminal offences, but the reason they are criminal offences has nothing to do with a property right. Indeed, if they were, they would simply be subsumed under robbery.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Because you're dead and have no other use for them. Anyone who actively opposes donating their body will actively opt out anyway, the only people to "lose" in this scenario are people who get stuck in the bureaucracy of it, so I would consider your religious point as some progress.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The bottom line of my argument is that the state doesn't own me, I don't owe anything to anyone else, and the reason why I don't want to be taken apart is no one else's concern. Whether I have use for something is irrelevant.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    The bottom line of my argument is that the state doesn't own me, I don't owe anything to anyone else, and the reason why I don't want to be taken apart is no one else's concern. Whether I have use for something is irrelevant.
    Who does own your body when you're dead?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Who does own your body when you're dead?
    Neither the state nor other people.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Neither the state nor other people.
    So what gives people the permission to bury or cremate you if you haven't expressly requested to be?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    This was passed in Wales by 43 votes to 8, just saying.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    So what gives people the permission to bury or cremate you if you haven't expressly requested to be?
    They can't stand the smell of decomposing humans? Humour me.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    They can't stand the smell of decomposing humans? Humour me.
    So 'they can't stand the smell of decomposing humans' is a good enough reason to appropriate a dead body, but 'they're dying' is not?
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 4, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.