Should organ donation be made compulsory with an oupt out option int the UK? Watch

Drunk Punx
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#81
Report 7 years ago
#81
(Original post by Munchies-YumYum)
I have read in the BBC that once a patient was given an organ from a 30 year old smoker. She died after several months though, she had no idea that she was given the organ of a smoker. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10307324 searched it out for you.

Yeah, I could feel the hosepipe moving. It was very uncomfortable and painful. But that was my choice, the doctor told me he could do it either with me being awake or give something to make me sleep during the procedure. I took this pain in order to get out of the hospital earlier, haha. After that he told me that an organ had a weird shape, and that I have a kind of virus. Luckily I don't vomit anymore in the mornings.
Followed a link off that page and found this one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8374764.stm
It's a problem, albeit uncommon, at the moment, so I can imagine it being more common when more organs are available.

I'd probably prefer to be unconscious when they do it. I've never been admitted to hospital, but for some reason I've never liked them. I could probably deal with my irrational "fear" of it if it meant feeling no pain
Glad you got better anyway man :yy:
0
quote
reply
Munchies-YumYum
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#82
Report 7 years ago
#82
(Original post by Drunk Punx)
Followed a link off that page and found this one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8374764.stm
It's a problem, albeit uncommon, at the moment, so I can imagine it being more common when more organs are available.

I'd probably prefer to be unconscious when they do it. I've never been admitted to hospital, but for some reason I've never liked them. I could probably deal with my irrational "fear" of it if it meant feeling no pain
Glad you got better anyway man :yy:
There you go, haha. Thanks dude. <3
0
quote
reply
Smelly Ellie
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#83
Report 7 years ago
#83
(Original post by sellasi6290)
but don't youhink the same thing will happen again, like right now those who can't be bothered to opt in dont, but this time it's a serious thing were those who don't opt out or have the means to opt out get their organs taken away despite of family objection just because they were as lazy as the people who claimed tht they wanted to opt in but somehow didnt have the time?
If people have a strong objection, they can opt out. Like people who really want to donate opt in now. There are a whole load of in-betweeny people who don't mind either way, just haven't got round to opting in, and using these peoples organs could at the end of the day save lives.
1
quote
reply
Darkphilosopher
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#84
Report 7 years ago
#84
Surely this would be unethical as there would be those who do not understand the implications of donating one of their organs.

When "donating" an organ, there are considerable risks to take into account. What if the donor were to fall ill and require a transplant shortly after they have donated?
This would require somebody elses organ to be donated to them and so on.

Seeing as such a small percentage of the population currently donate their organs there is a fairly small risk of this happening. If it were to be made compulsory (with the option of an opt out) however, there is likely to be a noticable increase in donations. With this, comes a great increase in risk.

It would be both time consuming and costly to have a large population of people constantly swapping around organs between each other.

I know this is a bit blown out of proportion but there is still the chance of it happening.
What we need to ask ourselves is;
Does the potential for risk outweigh the potential benefits.

There are also the associated political problems that come with this, would it be democatically accepted for this to become reality?

Also, if there is a large proportion of people that do want to opt out, how much will it cost the government for people to do this?
It may seem as simple as a phonecall and a quick amendment, but 20 million phone calls could prove to be rather problematic.
2
quote
reply
Fusilero
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#85
Report 7 years ago
#85
(Original post by Darkphilosopher)
Surely this would be unethical as there would be those who do not understand the implications of donating one of their organs.

When "donating" an organ, there are considerable risks to take into account. What if the donor were to fall ill and require a transplant shortly after they have donated?
This would require somebody elses organ to be donated to them and so on.

Seeing as such a small percentage of the population currently donate their organs there is a fairly small risk of this happening. If it were to be made compulsory (with the option of an opt out) however, there is likely to be a noticable increase in donations. With this, comes a great increase in risk.

It would be both time consuming and costly to have a large population of people constantly swapping around organs between each other.


I know this is a bit blown out of proportion but there is still the chance of it happening.
What we need to ask ourselves is;
Does the potential for risk outweigh the potential benefits.

There are also the associated political problems that come with this, would it be democatically accepted for this to become reality?

Also, if there is a large proportion of people that do want to opt out, how much will it cost the government for people to do this?
It may seem as simple as a phonecall and a quick amendment, but 20 million phone calls could prove to be rather problematic.
No it does not. We have a constant organ deficit, the majority of people are apathetic to this issue rather than strongly for and against. Harnessing this, to put it grimly, resource is a vital way to overcome this shortfall in organs.

The bit in italics is just stupid, apart from a few operations which usually occur directly between two peopls (organ donation registers don't come into it), organ donations happen post-mortem. It isn't donation of blood, the organs are stored and preserved after you die, they don't regularly harvest your organs just in case. There is no chain of organ swapping.
0
quote
reply
Darkphilosopher
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#86
Report 7 years ago
#86
(Original post by Fusilero)
No it does not. We have a constant organ deficit, the majority of people are apathetic to this issue rather than strongly for and against. Harnessing this, to put it grimly, resource is a vital way to overcome this shortfall in organs.

The bit in italics is just stupid, apart from a few operations which usually occur directly between two peopls (organ donation registers don't come into it), organ donations happen post-mortem. It isn't donation of blood, the organs are stored and preserved after you die, they don't regularly harvest your organs just in case. There is no chain of organ swapping.
Ok fair enough, this was with the assumption of live donors
And I did say
I know this is a bit blown out of proportion
As for post-mortem, it is unethical if you die prematurely without getting the chance to opt out then end up having your body desecrated.

It would be better if people were asked every couple of years whether they would like to opt out or opt back in. This would solve the problem above.
0
quote
reply
Komakino
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#87
Report 7 years ago
#87
(Original post by sellasi6290)
We're having a debate in our ethics class and my group are against this motion, can someone help me to find reasons as to why this motion is bad please??
I misread this, I thought you meant for people who are dead. If they are dead I think so, although you'd have to move fast as their organs will deteriorate.
If they aren't dead then of course not.
0
quote
reply
Komakino
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#88
Report 7 years ago
#88
(Original post by Darkphilosopher)
Ok fair enough, this was with the assumption of live donors
And I did say

As for post-mortem, it is unethical if you die prematurely without getting the chance to opt out then end up having your body desecrated.

It would be better if people were asked every couple of years whether they would like to opt out or opt back in. This would solve the problem above.
Why would you care about your body when you're dead?
0
quote
reply
girlwithsharpteeth
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#89
Report 7 years ago
#89
(Original post by Komakino)
Why would you care about your body when you're dead?
Why do people care about necrophilia? Because a body isn't seen as just a chunk of meat, no matter how anyone tries to say "you're just being sentimental.."

(I'm on the donation list btw so I don't feel this way, just saying you can't always rationalise everything and try to force people to feel a certain way )
0
quote
reply
Komakino
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#90
Report 7 years ago
#90
(Original post by girlwithsharpteeth)
Why do people care about necrophilia? Because a body isn't seen as just a chunk of meat, no matter how anyone tries to say "you're just being sentimental.."

(I'm on the donation list btw so I don't feel this way, just saying you can't always rationalise everything and try to force people to feel a certain way )
People care about necrophilia because it is perverse. Why is it perverse, probably as a derivative of the biological function of sex- to reproduce. Also of course because your ****ing a now inanimate object, it's not natural.
0
quote
reply
Persephone9
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#91
Report 7 years ago
#91
(Original post by slacker07906)
People interpret the bible differently. There are many arguments for and against everything, and organ donation is one of them touchy subjects. I just dont believe in organ donation. But if people are going to donate an organ to me, then it would be selfish for me to refuse it when millions of people are waiting for one :cool:
I don't believe in forcing people to give organ, however, that doesn't make sense. If you were in need of an organ, by saying that you didn't want one in advance, this would leave an extra organ available for others on the transplant list (assuming you mean from a dead or brain dead donor, rather than a living donor), which would be selfless, rather than selfish.

Also, Spain does have an opt-out system, but as someone else has already said, their rates of organ donation having changed much since they moved to an opt-out system. What Spain doesn't have, is laws that make it compulsory to wear a seat belt if you're in the back seat of a car, and road accidents generate a huge amount of brain dead donors, or beating heart donors. Beating heart donors are the sort that you can take the most organs from, as their organs remain viable (esp. heart and lungs, which degrade very quickly once the heart stops beating) for much longer if the donor is supported on a ventilator.

I support the opt-in system, because opt-out presumes consent, and not everyone is able to consent to organ donation. Whilst the family don't have a legal right to veto someones decision to donate their organs, it is very uncommon for organs to be harvested if the family raises strong objections. In an opt in system, if a person has opted-in then their intent was clear. If they had not opted-out, then the family may be unsure whether the person wanted their organs donated or just never got round to opting out (as people don't frequently discuss what they want to happen after they die with their family), and so may request that the organs are not donated just to be on the safe side.

I do think though, it should be made harder not to consciously choose whether or not you want to opt in.
0
quote
reply
girlwithsharpteeth
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#92
Report 7 years ago
#92
(Original post by Komakino)
People care about necrophilia because it is perverse. Why is it perverse, probably as a derivative of the biological function of sex- to reproduce. Also of course because your ****ing a now inanimate object, it's not natural.
I didn't say it wasn't perverse, I simply said that both are seen by people to be wrong based on emotions and sentimentality - in both cases it is an "inanimate object" that is no longer a person and that can't be hurt. Don't worry, I think of organ donation as very different to necrophilia! I was just pointing out that it is impossible to say that someone should feel guilty for refusing to donate or to offer a relative as a donor simply because of sentimentality over an inanimate object.
0
quote
reply
Darkphilosopher
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#93
Report 7 years ago
#93
(Original post by Komakino)
Why would you care about your body when you're dead?
Because its mine

I would rather blow it up than save somebodys life with my organs
0
quote
reply
Komakino
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#94
Report 7 years ago
#94
(Original post by girlwithsharpteeth)
I didn't say it wasn't perverse, I simply said that both are seen by people to be wrong based on emotions and sentimentality - in both cases it is an "inanimate object" that is no longer a person and that can't be hurt. Don't worry, I think of organ donation as very different to necrophilia! I was just pointing out that it is impossible to say that someone should feel guilty for refusing to donate or to offer a relative as a donor simply because of sentimentality over an inanimate object.
I didn't say they should feel guilty, just that it's irrational. What's the difference between post-mortem organ donation and necrophilia- the former serves a beneficial purpose to society and indeed humanity, the latter does neither.
0
quote
reply
Komakino
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#95
Report 7 years ago
#95
(Original post by Darkphilosopher)
Because its mine

I would rather blow it up than save somebodys life with my organs
Well, it's no longer yours when you die. It belongs to no one at that point, accept for your family if you left explicit instructions, or the hospital if you're an organ donor.
If you left no explicit instructions, then technically it belongs to no one. It's just that the family are the nearest thing to an authority over what to do with it.
0
quote
reply
girlwithsharpteeth
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#96
Report 7 years ago
#96
(Original post by Komakino)
I didn't say they should feel guilty, just that it's irrational. What's the difference between post-mortem organ donation and necrophilia- the former serves a beneficial purpose to society and indeed humanity, the latter does neither.
Again, I didn't say there was no difference and again, I'm pro organ donation and very anti-necrophilia! And I completely agree with what you have just said. However, I was saying that arguments against both tend to be linked to sentimentality and it is impossible to try and rationalise everything - somethings that are so tied up with peoples emotions can't be rationalised and whether you want to make someone feel guilty for not donating or not doesn't change the fact that this is what often happens, especially in opt-out countries.
0
quote
reply
Komakino
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#97
Report 7 years ago
#97
(Original post by girlwithsharpteeth)
Again, I didn't say there was no difference and again, I'm pro organ donation and very anti-necrophilia! And I completely agree with what you have just said. However, I was saying that arguments against both tend to be linked to sentimentality and it is impossible to try and rationalise everything - somethings that are so tied up with peoples emotions can't be rationalised and whether you want to make someone feel guilty for not donating or not doesn't change the fact that this is what often happens, especially in opt-out countries.
I can live with that. All I will say is that there is a good argument for overriding certain sentimental/spiritual objections to post-mortem organ donation. That being said, it wouldn't happen in our society.

I also personally find it rather immoral that people are unwilling to release their family member/ lover/ child's organs after death, given it could benefit someone else. But that is based on the premise that we owe each other a good standard of living when it doesn't unreasonably infringe our own. So I guess the rebuttal there would be that it unreasonably infringes our standard of living, if the maintenance of the person's body is particularly important for whatever reason. I think the enforcement of such a law would also be immoral though, so it won't happen.
0
quote
reply
No Future
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#98
Report 7 years ago
#98
(Original post by sellasi6290)
We're having a debate in our ethics class and my group are against this motion, can someone help me to find reasons as to why this motion is bad please??
It might save lives and it's expensive :rolleyes:
0
quote
reply
No Future
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#99
Report 7 years ago
#99
(Original post by girlwithsharpteeth)
Why do people care about necrophilia? Because a body isn't seen as just a chunk of meat, no matter how anyone tries to say "you're just being sentimental.."

(I'm on the donation list btw so I don't feel this way, just saying you can't always rationalise everything and try to force people to feel a certain way )
****ing the dead is somewhat different from using tissues from the dead to improve the quality of peoples' lives.
0
quote
reply
girlwithsharpteeth
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#100
Report 7 years ago
#100
(Original post by No Future)
****ing the dead is somewhat different from using tissues from the dead to improve the quality of peoples' lives.
Thankfully, I never said it wasn't different, I was using an extreme example to get a point across.
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

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (246)
27.3%
No (655)
72.7%

Watched Threads

View All