Should there be an "opt out" organ donor scheme? Watch

ploder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#61
Report 10 years ago
#61
That is a graph from an unverified source showing that organ donorship increases with 'opt-out' systems. However, even if the information in that graph is correct this is about the morality and legality of 'presumed-consent' rather than how many organs can be acquired. You should be aware that many people such as myself will opt-out of organ donorship if Brown's plan becomes law. Organ donorship should be by gift and consent!

Which is why people can opt out if they DON'T want to donate...
I don't think you understand my argument.'Presumed-consent' (oxymoron) is not a valid consent. Ask any first year law student and they will tell you that there is a great precedent in English Law that your consent for an agreement cannot be gained by silence on your part. Being given the option of saying no is still not consent. The government serves the people, not the other way around. Organ donorship should only be carried out with consent of the individual concerned.

[These arguments can be dealt with together]
YES! I'm sure many people would be more than happy to donate their organs once they're dead to help others live, but getting around to signing up for it is a hassle, something you always put off at a later date, so many people end up not being an organ donor, not because they don't want to, because they never made their wishes know. And allowing thousands because of this is ridiculous.
For a lot of people it's not a matter of pressing importance, and gets shunted to the back of the mind, thus people who are in desperate need of a transplant go without.
But why is it the "norm" for people not to be organ donors? Surely this is wrong.
No it is not wrong. It is only wrong if you think it is an obligation upon a person to give up his/her organs on death. We are a free country where our consent is required before interfering with our body. If people require organs then it is up to the government to inform people, and if they still don't want to donate/can't be bothered then they shouldn't be taken without consent.

It is during arguments such as these that we can see the damage that is being done by Labour's authoritarian policies on peoples psyche. The task force gave recommendations that would avoid having to deal with 'presumed-consent' and still Brown wants to press ahead.

You could say, with the opt out scheme that it IS affirmative assumption if you look at it as "Yes, I want my body to be untouched when I die" or "Yes, I want people to die from lack of organs when I could have saved their lives".
That is a backflip summersault in logic. That is still not consent because the decision would be taken if you remain silent. Noone wants people to die, but organ donorship must be through consent.

They are still assuming the actions of everyone with an opt-in system.
How so? You mean they are assuming that people will say no? In which case ask them and they will have a clear yes/no answer.
0
quote
reply
Slice
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#62
Report 10 years ago
#62
(Original post by Joanna May)
How would it save thousands of lives, when:


If the scheme isn't going to increase the availability of organs, then all you've done by making it compulsory is make a lot of people angry and they will lose trust in doctors and the government.
I don't see how that can be correct. If the number of donars increases, then the number of usuable organs increases. If the number of usable organs increases, then the logical progression must be that more lives are saved.
0
quote
reply
Eragon452
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#63
Report 10 years ago
#63
(Original post by Slice)
I agree with everything you've said, apart from this bit. I can understand why you would want this to be the case, but I don't think that it's fair. For some people, donating an organ isn't an option for religious reasons, or because of illnesses and what have you. I know that to someone who isn't relgious, then religion doesn't seem a rational reason for opting out, but I don't think we should be able to say that they are less deserving of an organ because of their religion. Does that make sense? :confused:
I agree with the illness bit. If they're not medically fit to donate then of course they shouldn't be lower priority.
0
quote
reply
goodtogallop
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#64
Report 10 years ago
#64
I am thinking about putting my name on the organ donor register at the moment, but if it was an opt-out scheme and consent was presumed I would certainly opt out on the principle of the matter!
0
quote
reply
cheemaj187
Badges: 0
#65
Report 10 years ago
#65
Opt-out system would be the best option imo. I always wanted to register but (probably out of laziness) I never got round to it. Thankfully watching the news concerning this debate today gave me the motivation to go online and register.
0
quote
reply
JammyP
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#66
Report 10 years ago
#66
(Original post by goodtogallop)
I am thinking about putting my name on the organ donor register at the moment, but if it was an opt-out scheme and consent was presumed I would certainly opt out on the principle of the matter!
Wait,

what?
0
quote
reply
Joanna May
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#67
Report 10 years ago
#67
(Original post by Slice)
I don't see how that can be correct. If the number of donars increases, then the number of usuable organs increases. If the number of usable organs increases, then the logical progression must be that more lives are saved.
I don't know how it's the case either, but I'm fairly sure this committee has done more research than either of us, so I would take their word to be true. Considering it would be in their interests to find on the government's side in this case and they haven't, I'd say their findings are more likely reliable.
0
quote
reply
Charlski
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#68
Report 10 years ago
#68
(Original post by goodtogallop)
I am thinking about putting my name on the organ donor register at the moment, but if it was an opt-out scheme and consent was presumed I would certainly opt out on the principle of the matter!



Being bloody minded just for the sake of it isn't clever.
0
quote
reply
goodtogallop
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#69
Report 10 years ago
#69
I really dislike the idea of opt-out systems based on assumed consent and so I would make a point of opting out on principle, whereas with the opt-in system I am leaning towards signing up.
0
quote
reply
Nothos
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#70
Report 10 years ago
#70
Of course there should be, that is if you think the government has a right to own your body and do with it as it sees fit.

If, however, you are not mentally retarded, you will see this for what it is, another draconian step by the government which will lead to a load of unnecessary bureaucracy and lead to a fair few bodies being needlessly mutilated when the doctors find out that their organs cannot be used.

I'm currently a registered organ donor, but my God, if they implement this I will be opting out. No ******* way am I going to let my body become the play thing of a government that has hiked taxes, increased unemployment and generally raped the economy for the last ten years before then assuming it's perfectly okay to have my organs without my consent.
0
quote
reply
Sardine
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#71
Report 10 years ago
#71
no i dont think there should. In this country, no patient is treated without consent (unless they can't make reasonable judgements).. otherwise it would be considered as 'forced treatment'. Likewise, if the opt out system is implemented, there is no choice when the time comes.. if your name is on the register, you will HAVE to donate. So basically, it will totally contradict the current medical system's status. You could argue that people can opt out if they want... but what if certain circumstances mean this news didn't reach them.. if you see what i mean
0
quote
reply
Prokaryotic_crap
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#72
Report 10 years ago
#72
has this taken effect, or just a proposal? if it has taken effect - how do you opt out?
0
quote
reply
Slice
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#73
Report 10 years ago
#73
(Original post by ploder)
That is a graph from an unverified source showing that organ donorship increases with 'opt-out' systems.
Unverified or not, it has be said that logically, the number of donated organs must increase if more people donate.
(Original post by ploder)
However, even if the information in that graph is correct this is about the morality and legality of 'presumed-consent' rather than how many organs can be acquired. You should be aware that many people such as myself will opt-out of organ donorship if Brown's plan becomes law. Organ donorship should be by gift and consent!
Even so, the number of donars will still increase. I don't see why it should be "by gift and consent". As lots of people have said, you'll be dead! You don't need your organs anymore, so why not give them to someone who needs them?

(Original post by ploder)
I don't think you understand my argument.'Presumed-consent' (oxymoron)
I don't think it really matters if it's an oxymoron or not. This isn't really about grammar.


No it is not wrong. It is only wrong if you think it is an obligation upon a person to give up his/her organs on death. We are a free country where our consent is required before interfering with our body. If people require organs then it is up to the government to inform people, and if they still don't want to donate/can't be bothered then they shouldn't be taken without consent.
But consent will have been given. If you have been asked to reply to something ONLY If you do NOT want to take part, then by proxy, those who have not responded are consenting participants.
0
quote
reply
affinity89
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#74
Report 10 years ago
#74
(Original post by Yuffie)
You don't "need" to list reasons because you can't think of a single rational reason. "Rational" isn't just what someone wants in their head because, oh!Knives are icky i dnt wuna b cut up!!!! Rational is having a sensible, well thought out reason why donating organs would be bad. As far as I can see, when people are dead they have no use for their organs whereas someone, a dad, a mum, a brother, a sister - real people with real experiences, need an organ to survive. Imagine the worry for parents when their child is on the wait list for a donor, whether he or she will die before one becomes available. With opt-out scheme there would be millions more donors.

And yes, I agree with the fact if people opt out they should be lower priority to receive.
How did I know you'd suggest that I didn't know any reasons. So typical.

If someone wants to become an organ donor then that is good for them. If someone does not, they are not a lesser person in moral terms or anything else, they just don't want to and they should be respected for making that decision in face of pressures from people like you. My aunty, for example, does not believe in organ donation (or even blood transfusions) so it goes without saying that she will not be an organ donor. Whether you agree with her reasons for making that choice or not, it is her choice and she has made it.

I think this entire debate highlights some major flaws in society where people are judged in relation to an individual's ideas and if they don't come up to scratch, they are deemed selfish or less worthy. It is ridiculous. People should be content to make the decision they wish regarding their own body and then leave others to do to the same.

Edit: I am not debating this anymore. It is clear that people are very stuck in their views and just want to put other people down. If you quote me, I won't reply - I don't have the time to waste repeating myself.
0
quote
reply
Liquidus Zeromus
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#75
Report 10 years ago
#75
I think so. It's not like you're gonna need your kidneys when you die, but other people are. Fewer people will go to the effort to opt out. I'm all for it, especially with organs being scarce.

We aren't in Ancient Egypt, chumps. They don't put your organs into jars for the afterlife now.
0
quote
reply
Sardine
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#76
Report 10 years ago
#76
(Original post by Prokaryotic_crap)
has this taken effect, or just a proposal? if it has taken effect - how do you opt out?
no, it hasnt. Seems like you're keen to opt out :rolleyes:
0
quote
reply
Slice
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#77
Report 10 years ago
#77
(Original post by Joanna May)
I don't know how it's the case either, but I'm fairly sure this committee has done more research than either of us, so I would take their word to be true. Considering it would be in their interests to find on the government's side in this case and they haven't, I'd say their findings are more likely reliable.
I think their findings are more likely flawed, to be honest.
0
quote
reply
Joanna May
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#78
Report 10 years ago
#78
(Original post by Slice)
But consent will have been given. If you have been asked to reply to something ONLY If you do NOT want to take part, then by proxy, those who have not responded are consenting participants.
Consent doesn't work like that! Consent is an affirmative action, an agreement to something. It isn't just a non-denial.
0
quote
reply
Joanna May
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#79
Report 10 years ago
#79
(Original post by Slice)
I think their findings are more likely flawed, to be honest.
So you think a committee that has spent many days/weeks debating the issues and looking at the evidence provided by specialists are more likely to be wrong than you, who read this thread an hour ago and make opinions based on much less information?

The arrogance of some people is astounding. I don't think I can debate with people like that, especially when they think a non-response counts as consent.
0
quote
reply
Slice
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#80
Report 10 years ago
#80
I have a lesson, I will be back shortly to explain precisely why I think that they are probably wrong.
0
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Did you get less than your required grades and still get into university?

Yes (28)
25.93%
No - I got the required grades (66)
61.11%
No - I missed the required grades and didn't get in (14)
12.96%

Watched Threads

View All