Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

We should be organ donors by default, not "non-donor" by default? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should everyone be an organ donor by default, requiring them to opt-out if they wish?
    Yes, people should be donors by default and you can opt-out if you wish
    125
    59.24%
    No, people should be non-donors by default and opt-in
    86
    40.76%

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shanij)
    Because it is basically selfish. You are not willing to donate any of your organs, I presume you are healthy therefore you could if you wanted to. However, if something did happen you would want to have an organ given.

    I believe there should be an opt out system and people who opt out shouldn't be allowed an organ themselves - I am aware that it is extremely unlikely to ever happen & an extreme belief however, thousands of people are waiting on the list, many of which die waiting. Therefore, those who would donate their own should be given priority.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No as we live in a society where everyone is treated equal. We live in a society where you have the choice to donate or not. Noone is selfish who does not give up there organs everyone has there own reasons and you should respect that. If im selfish then your ignorant for having that view.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ziggy2252)
    No as we live in a society where everyone is treated equal. We live in a society where you have the choice to donate or not. Noone is selfish who does not give up there organs everyone has there own reasons and you should respect that. If im selfish then your ignorant for having that view.
    Call me ignorant if you want, that is fine. We also live in a society where many die along with their organs rotting. We live in a society where everyday people die waiting for an organ. Why let people have an organ transplant who would not be willing to give theirs? Equality blahblahblah, finding organs is challenging and we shouldn't be letting people be top of the list who aren't donating their own despite being healthy enough to.

    Edit: I do respect that people have reasons not to, I find it unfair that those people also are allowed an organ transplant if anything happened to them.
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nimrodstower)
    What a most stupid and crass comparison.
    (Original post by Shanji)
    This is a stupid comparison to be honest. Somebody breaking into your house is different to being an organ donor be default.
    (Original post by Miracle Day)
    The stupidest thing I've ever read.
    Why is it that three people are all able to read an analogy and call it "stupid", yet not one is able to explain exactly what the flaw in the analogy is? I didn't really expect to receive such primitive rebuttals in a debating section of the forum.
    And @Shanji: Yes, of course they're "different" - that's the whole point of an analogy. You take a different situation and apply the same principle, to see if it still works.

    The principle in both cases is one in which we assume that the owner of something consents to it being taken and used by other people, simply because they haven't stated otherwise.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Why is it that three people are all able to read an analogy and call it "stupid", yet not one is able to explain exactly what the flaw in the analogy is? And @Shanji: Yes, of course they're "different" - that's the whole point of an analogy. You take a different situation and apply the same principle, to see if it still works.

    The principle in both cases is one in which we assume that the owner of something consents to it being taken and used by other people, simply because they haven't stated otherwise.
    In that case, I shall be placing a "Please do not rob my house" sticker on my door.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shanij)
    In that case, I shall be placing a "Please do not rob my house" sticker on my door.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Well that's exactly what an opt-out system amounts to. Everyone is essentially required to place a "please do not take" note on their organs. If we're not going to require everyone to put "please do not steal" stickers on each of their homely possessions (otherwise they're free for the taking), why should body parts be an exception?

    I anticipate two responses to this: [1] Organs can save someone else's life, and [2] You'll be dead by the time anyone takes your organs, so you won't care. I think these are both faulty arguments, and my responses would be as follows:
    [1] Anything can save someone's life. Donating lots of money can save someone's life, but we don't allow charities to presume that they have a right to take your money just because you haven't stated otherwise. [2] We also don't allow people to just take whatever they feel like from the estate of a recently deceased person. Ownership passes to their next of kin. It doesn't become a public free-for-all.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Well that's exactly what an opt-out system amounts to. Everyone is essentially required to place a "please do not take" note on their organs. If we're not going to require everyone to put "please do not steal" stickers on each of their homely possessions (otherwise they're free for the taking), why should body parts be an exception?

    I anticipate two responses to this: [1] Organs can save someone else's life, and [2] You'll be dead by the time anyone takes your organs, so you won't care. I think these are both faulty arguments, and my responses would be as follows:
    [1] Anything can save someone's life. Donating lots of money can save someone's life, but we don't allow charities to presume that they have a right to take your money just because you haven't stated otherwise. [2] We also don't allow people to just take whatever they feel like from the estate of a recently deceased person. Ownership passes to their next of kin. It doesn't become a public free-for-all.
    The reasons for having an opt out system concerning organ donation outweigh those for opt in. Your organs can be useful to somebody else.
    The reasons for having a sticker on your door are stupid because it is a fact that you should not steal from somebody else.
    Having an opt out system in organ donation is not stealing, you have the opportunity to say no thank you.
    But it is pretty much immoral to steal in the society with things like laptops etc.
    we need awareness to be made for organ donation, one way is through the opt out system.
    Awareness doesn't need to be created with "you should not steal" in the same way, if somebody wants to rob your house they will do it no matter what - having a sticker doesn't make any difference.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Yes I agree, truthfully I'd love to make it compulsory but at the very least you should make it opt out so people who are too lazy will still donate. An organ shortage is tragic since its so easily rectified. I would also move to convince people with specific and obscure illnesses to donate their body for medical research.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think there could be a compromise between the two extremes. Why not have an opt-out system (after say the age of 18) for anything internal, with an opt-in system for things visible externally.

    I reckon this solves the apathy problem, while not forcing people into a default position they'd be uncomfortable with. I guess most people who aren't on the register because they don't want to be cut up wouldn't have a problem with the actual concept of donating internal organs (after all it's not like they just go in and hack away with a chain saw) but would have a problem with having their eyes or hands (for example) being removed after death.

    And those who felt strongly enough about it, as some people obviously do for their own perfectly valid reasons, could opt out. As for this being against the social norm, it's not like it'd be tattooed on your forehead (I've no idea which of my friends are organ donors, for instance).

    That way, everybody could be happy Surely..?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I was just talking to somebody and they said that they feel that they are too young (22) and therefore don't have the willpower to do it.
    So basically, out society are scared about ticking that box

    Therefore, having an opt out system will reduce that because then people may feel guilty for opting out and it will seem normal to be a donor


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pawsies)
    Think of the religious people that may not even speak English, or what about people who are mute or severely disabled who may not be able to express their wishes.
    If they don't speak English then that's their fault. In any case I'm pretty sure it would be possible for them to get someone else to fill in the forms or something. Mute people can still write, that's a terrible argument. And if somebody is so severely disabled that they can't opt out, then I'm sure their family would be able to have a say.

    Your examples are extremely specialised and ignore the fact that harvesting of someone's organs who for whatever reason didn't opt out when they wanted to hurts nobody since they're already dead, while the lack of available organs to donate costs actual lives. I would consider a few mistaken harvests an excellent trade-off for minimising the numbers of sick people who don't get donations.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Domeface)
    If they don't speak English then that's their fault. In any case I'm pretty sure it would be possible for them to get someone else to fill in the forms or something. Mute people can still write, that's a terrible argument. And if somebody is so severely disabled that they can't opt out, then I'm sure their family would be able to have a say.

    Your examples are extremely specialised and ignore the fact that harvesting of someone's organs who for whatever reason didn't opt out when they wanted to hurts nobody since they're already dead, while the lack of available organs to donate costs actual lives. I would consider a few mistaken harvests an excellent trade-off for minimising the numbers of sick people who don't get donations.
    And the language problem would be avoided anyway by presumably applying only to British citizens, with appropriate exemptions for those not able to make an informed decision (e.g. severe mental handicap).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Domeface)
    If they don't speak English then that's their fault.

    Typical UKIP/BNP response.


    In any case I'm pretty sure it would be possible for them to get someone else to fill in the forms or something. Mute people can still write, that's a terrible argument. And if somebody is so severely disabled that they can't opt out, then I'm sure their family would be able to have a say.

    Your examples are extremely specialised and ignore the fact that harvesting of someone's organs who for whatever reason didn't opt out when they wanted to hurts nobody since they're already dead, while the lack of available organs to donate costs actual lives. I would consider a few mistaken harvests an excellent trade-off for minimising the numbers of sick people who don't get donations.
    Once again you are ignoring personal beliefs. The Ancient Egyptians used to believe that the gods measured the weight of your heart to see how sinful you were.

    Granted, this would be an unpopular belief nowadays but some people may want to keep their organs just in case there is a judgement or religious reason.


    Who are you to force someone to give up their body part? And as for harvesting organs regardless when someone dies I would argue that that is not letting somebody rest in peace.

    Plus also, we can always use pigs.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...s-by-2013.html
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by doggyfizzel)
    Perhaps a system where letters are sent out and you have to respond. It would take just as much effort either way.

    I signed up and did mine after reading a thread here on TSR.
    They do kind of have a system like that - I signed up because I was asked whether I wanted to when applying for my provisional driving license. Tbh, I probably wouldn't have got round to doing it otherwise.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shanij)
    The reasons for having an opt out system concerning organ donation outweigh those for opt in. Your organs can be useful to somebody else.
    As I said already - any of your possessions can be useful to someone else. Some of your homely possessions may be life-saving for someone else. Organs are no different in that regard.

    The reasons for having a sticker on your door are stupid because it is a fact that you should not steal from somebody else.
    It's also a fact that you shouldn't take someone's organs if they don't want you to. Again, no difference there.

    Having an opt out system in organ donation is not stealing, you have the opportunity to say no thank you.
    But it is pretty much immoral to steal in the society with things like laptops etc.
    And you also have the opportunity to say "no thank you" to someone who wants to take your homely possessions. The point is, you shouldn't have to. With homely possessions, it's assumed by default that people do not consent to you taking their things. What's so exceptional about organs that it should be the other way round?

    we need awareness to be made for organ donation, one way is through the opt out system.
    We also need awareness to be raised for giving to various charities. Would you suggest that one way of doing this is through an opt-out system, where charities have free access to all your money unless you explicitly tell them not to take it?
    Again, the answer is no - you are presumed to not have the right to take other people's stuff, unless they say otherwise.


    Awareness doesn't need to be created with "you should not steal" in the same way, if somebody wants to rob your house they will do it no matter what - having a sticker doesn't make any difference.
    This is besides the point. It's not about whether they would or wouldn't take your things, but whether they have the right to do so.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I respect those brave enough to be an organ donor , but I personally wouldn't want someone opening me up after I die
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)


    We also need awareness to be raised for giving to various charities. Would you suggest that one way of doing this is through an opt-out system, where charities have free access to all your money unless you explicitly tell them not to take it?
    Again, the answer is no - you are presumed to not have the right to take other people's stuff, unless they say otherwise.

    This is a great point. Charities often allow people to leave donations in their will to the charity. However charities do not have the right to demand money/property upon death from someone that never signed up.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    And you also have the opportunity to say "no thank you" to someone who wants to take your homely possessions. The point is, you shouldn't have to. With homely possessions, it's assumed by default that people do not consent to you taking their things. What's so exceptional about organs that it should be the other way round?
    Presumably because (a) you are dead and therefore have no ownership of anything, (b) your organs would merely go to waste otherwise (there's no issue of inheritance) and (c) removing them from you negatively affects absolutely nobody, while (d) saving lives. In other words, it's a no-lose situation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Instead, I think there should be no status until you are 16. By no status I mean you aren't registered and you aren't not registered, however if you do unfortunately pass on, then it should be up to your next of kin.
    On or around your 16th birthday you should be sent a letter, email or text asking you whether or not to register. I think there would be more people on the register

    Thats just my opinion though.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    The automatic assumption that the state owns your organs is wrong.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hamijack)
    As much as I would like to see an increased amount of organ donors, I am uncomfortable with the state assuming automatic ownership of my body after I die. Perhaps a better system would be to send a person a letter encouraging them to sign when they reach the eligible donation age?
    I agree. It's a matter of principle - as the law generally is. Your body and organs are your own, so the state cannot "assume" ownership of it, even if you can legally 'opt out' - the idea that someone needs to go out of their way to keep their organs after death won't work. It is yours from birth and giving away organs has to be a specific choice.
    They could inform of organ donation in school though, sending letters, making more people aware etc.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
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: April 25, 2013
  • 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.