Turn on thread page Beta

Chief Medical Officer proposes 'opt out' organ donation system. watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    It's still not right. All these new schemes the government keep coming up with for our benefit are making me very disillusioned with Britain right now.
    When I went to see my Nan for the last time at the rest home even though I knew she was gone it was comforting to see her one last time as the body she once was, it wouldn't have felt right to me knowing that before she was even cold and before any of her loved ones had seen her people had already taken another bit away. I know that donating your organs is a wonderful thing, but people are apathetic and in time (if this does come to pass) then it will just be another thing that happens without much thought.
    I mean, imagine looking down on your Mother and instead of her eyes closed as if she were sleeping the sockets were sunken and depressed because someone had taken her eyes because she hadn't thought to fill out a form claiming her body as her own. Would that not just be awful?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tomber)
    This isn't some sinister conspiracy to rob people of their organs you know? Keep in mind that the aim here is to save lives, because at the moment hundreds of people are dying because of public apathy.
    Obviously it isn't a conspiracy. But you just admitted that there is a problem with apathy. People just don't care enought o spend 5 minutes filling in a form to become an organ donor. So, you would agree with me that this opt-out system is a way to take advantage of that apathy to vastly increase the number of organs available?

    Before dealing with the moral implications of taking organs, at least agree that this idea is designed to ensure that people end up giving away their organs without really wanting to.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tomber)
    No I think this statement is related to health care
    *******s it is. It's entirely political, but of course it's not the CMO's job to think about personal liberty: hence his support for smoking bans or whatever other authoritarianism is going.

    He's in no position to make such a statement. Shockingly, health is not everything when it comes to legislating.

    to say your body is being pillaged by the government is being more than a little melodramatic don't you think?
    Not in the least, and certainly not in the mind of someone who values their corpse.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tomber)
    This isn't some sinister conspiracy to rob people of their organs you know? Keep in mind that the aim here is to save lives, because at the moment hundreds of people are dying because of public apathy.
    So be it, I'm afraid. If someone does not want to give something, then that does not give you the justification to go ahead and take it.

    Make organ donation more readily known - for example, I gave blood last week, able opportunity for the NHS to leaflet me or have me sign whatever they fancied... did they? Nope.

    At least the bloody donation people are actually doing something - leaflets in students' unions and so forth. Where are the ones about organ donation?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libertin du Nord)
    So be it, I'm afraid. If someone does not want to give something, then that does not give you the justification to go ahead and take it.

    Make organ donation more readily known - for example, I gave blood last week, able opportunity for the NHS to leaflet me or have me sign whatever they fancied... did they? Nope.

    At least the bloody donation people are actually doing something - leaflets in students' unions and so forth. Where are the ones about organ donation?
    If someone doesn't want to give their organs (for whatever reason) they can fill in the bloody form.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bubblebee)
    It's still not right. All these new schemes the government keep coming up with for our benefit are making me very disillusioned with Britain right now.
    When I went to see my Nan for the last time at the rest home even though I knew she was gone it was comforting to see her one last time as the body she once was, it wouldn't have felt right to me knowing that before she was even cold and before any of her loved ones had seen her people had already taken another bit away. I know that donating your organs is a wonderful thing, but people are apathetic and in time (if this does come to pass) then it will just be another thing that happens without much thought.
    I mean, imagine looking down on your Mother and instead of her eyes closed as if she were sleeping the sockets were sunken and depressed because someone had taken her eyes because she hadn't thought to fill out a form claiming her body as her own. Would that not just be awful?
    I was actually in that situation with my dad, and believe me if something could have made what was the most difficult time of my life easier, it would have been knowing that his death, had enabled other people to live.

    (Original post by phawkins1988)
    If someone doesn't want to give their organs (for whatever reason) they can fill in the bloody form.
    Yes, it really isn't that hard.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by phawkins1988)
    If someone doesn't want to give their organs (for whatever reason) they can fill in the bloody form.
    And if someone does want to give their organs they can fill in the bloody form. :rolleyes:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Obviously it isn't a conspiracy. But you just admitted that there is a problem with apathy. People just don't care enought o spend 5 minutes filling in a form to become an organ donor. So, you would agree with me that this opt-out system is a way to take advantage of that apathy to vastly increase the number of organs available?

    Before dealing with the moral implications of taking organs, at least agree that this idea is designed to ensure that people end up giving away their organs without really wanting to.
    Ok, I suppose in a way this is taking advantage of apathy, but it really is a better way of weeding out those who are genuinely opposed to organ donation, from those who just don't give a damn about people suffering enough to fill in a form.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by phawkins1988)
    Because if you don't fill out the opt-out form, you clearly don't care enough to be bothered about them taking your organs. I completely agree with this proposal.
    That's a pretty big presumption. You're presuming someone DOES want to do something like that, unless they go to the trouble of stating the opposite. It's the wrong way round in presumption terms.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    That's a pretty big presumption. You're presuming someone DOES want to do something like that, unless they go to the trouble of stating the opposite. It's the wrong way round in presumption terms.
    Which is the way it should be imo.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    That's a pretty big presumption. You're presuming someone DOES want to do something like that, unless they go to the trouble of stating the opposite. It's the wrong way round in presumption terms.
    It's not presuming that people want to. It's presuming that people have no objection to it, and therefore are happy to have their organs harvested. And, that an objection has not been stated is just the sort of evidence we need to conclude that someone does not have an objection to something. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's a better system that we have now.
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    And if someone does want to give their organs they can fill in the bloody form.
    That leads to less organs due to apathy. Less organs, ceteris paribus, is a bad thing because it means less lives are saved.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    And if someone does want to give their organs they can fill in the bloody form. :rolleyes:
    Ahem.

    Situation 1 - Opt in ) Bill is a 40 year old who's dying of heart disease. He doesn't give a damn about his body when he dies, and he can't be arsed filling a form either because he's a lazy bugger. Sarah next to him, desperately needs a kidney to survive, and there's no one else apart from Bill. Due to the present law, sadly Sarah dies.

    Situation 2 - Opt out) Bill, the same lazy bugger, dies and Sarah survives. No one else has any problem with anything, as Bill obviously didn't care what happened to his body.

    If there is apathy either way, then the organs must be taken. If a guy is religious or has his own moral beliefs, he won't be lazy enough to not fill a form. A guy like Bill, will be.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by phawkins1988)
    It's not presuming that people want to. It's presuming that people have no objection to it, and therefore are happy to have their organs harvested.
    And the fact that not a huge amount of people opt-in shows that people aren't happy to have their organs harvested. Why do you think you have the right to take their organs against their will?

    And, that an objection has not been stated is just the sort of evidence we need to conclude that someone does not have an objection to something. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's a better system that we have now.
    If someone doesn't register, it shows they do have an objection one way or another. Maybe the objection is because they're too lazy, but the answer then is to make donation easier, not force everyone to give up their organs as the default position.

    That leads to less organs due to apathy. Less organs, ceteris paribus, is a bad thing because it means less lives are saved.
    False. Sweden has an opt-out law, and the rate of organ donation is lower than the UK's at the moment.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tomber)
    Which is the way it should be imo.
    So we should just start presuming people want things done to them unless they specifically go to the trouble of stating the opposite?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    False. Sweden has an opt-out law, and the rate of organ donation is lower than the UK's at the moment.
    What about the other countries ?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    So we should just start presuming people want things done to them unless they specifically go to the trouble of stating the opposite?
    We should presume that people would want to save others' lives unless they categorically have a moral or religious objection to their body being used.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by phawkins1988)
    It's not presuming that people want to. It's presuming that people have no objection to it...
    The presumption of this plan would be that people want to have their organs harvested unless they specifically state the opposite. That is how implied consent works. It is presumed that they CONSENT. Not having an objection is not consent - so it is not presumed that they have no objection, as you claim.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    And the fact that not a huge amount of people opt-in shows that people aren't happy to have their organs harvested. Why do you think you have the right to take their organs against their will?
    No it shows people are lazy and apathetic.

    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    If someone doesn't register, it shows they do have an objection one way or another. Maybe the objection is because they're too lazy, but the answer then is to make donation easier, not force everyone to give up their organs as the default position.
    That is not an objection. And I don't think it can be made much easier.


    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    False. Sweden has an opt-out law, and the rate of organ donation is lower than the UK's at the moment.
    source? out of interest.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    It is presumed that they CONSENT. Not minding is not consent - so it is not presumed that they don't mind.
    I think anything other then an active objection is consent really.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Well at least everyone is now agreeing that this opt-out system is proposed in order to take advantage of people's apathy. Yes, Adarshster you can provide scenarios which would be better under your system and I could just as easily provide scenarios that would be better under the present system. Congrats.

    But, now we accept that the proposal is one designed to take advantage of people's apathy to enable the government/medical teams (whatever) to use the organs of people who didn't really want to give them in the first place. The question becomes a more simple one: Is it right to take advantage of people in this way? Some will say yes because the benefits are great. The alternative is to say that this is a gross violation of people's freedoms.

    Personally, I would veer towards the latter position because, despite how important it is to have organ donors, taking them in this way is morally wrong.

    There are other ways to increase the number of organ donors but those ways would be more expensive and less succesful. Nevertheless, in my opinion it is wrong to take advantage of people to enable you to take their organs when they don't really want to give them. It also sets a precedent to do similar things in other cases where the benefits are less important. However, the precedent is a smaller problem than the problem of effectively taking organs without proper consent.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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: July 19, 2007
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

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

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