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

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    Perhaps I should address your's- they can opt out.... :rolleyes:
    I know they can opt-out. The point is, "removing organs negatively affects nobody" is not a valid argument, because it is an argument based purely on one's own beliefs, not on universal fact.


    Why not also have an opt-out system whereby charities can take money directly from your bank account without asking, unless you have specifically told them not to? After all, if you don't want to, you can opt-out, so it's all good right?
    The point is, you shouldn't have to opt-out in these circumstances, because consent should not be presumed. If we simply accept, as a general principle, that a person consents to something unless they say otherwise, we'd all have to spend our entire lives signing opt-out forms for everything. This is why instead, we use a general rule that people do not consent to something, unless stated otherwise.

    As I explained above, the "removing organs negatively affects nobody" argument is not a good enough reason to treat the situation with organs any differently, as an exception to the rule. Whether or not it will negatively affect them in some kind of afterlife is a matter of belief and speculation, not a matter of fact.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I know they can opt-out. The point is, "removing organs negatively affects nobody" is not a valid argument, because it is an argument based purely on one's own beliefs, not on universal fact.
    I could provide more evidence that it does not affect someone, than they could provide to prove it does affect them- yes?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    Then next time you are hospitalised you'll have to avoid consuming a hospital bed?
    Meaning that people can be killed for their organs, there'll be anonymous hits put on people because they know they're worth more dead than alive. It's an incentive to murder and lots of people don't get caught.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snagprophet)
    Meaning that people can be killed for their organs, there'll be anonymous hits put on people because they know they're worth more dead than alive. It's an incentive to murder and lots of people don't get caught.
    and I said that argument could be extended to argue people could be killed for their bed. So the person I quoted (cant see if it was you) would also have to avoid using hospital beds?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    I could provide more evidence that it does not affect someone, than they could provide to prove it does affect them- yes?
    I doubt it. By it's very nature, empirical evidence regarding what someone might experience after their death is impossible for living people to obtain.

    But it doesn't really matter whether you could provide more evidence than them or not. What someone else believes or doesn't believe about the afterlife is up to them. Even if you could provide more evidence, it wouldn't change the fact that "removing organs negatively affects nobody" is not universally accepted fact. It would still just be your personal belief, which as far as anyone else is concerned, may or may not be true. That's not something you can base a law upon.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I doubt it. By it's very nature, empirical evidence regarding what someone might experience after their death is impossible for living people to obtain.

    But it doesn't really matter whether you could provide more evidence than them or not. What someone else believes or doesn't believe about the afterlife is up to them. Even if you could provide more evidence, it wouldn't change the fact that "removing organs negatively affects nobody" is not universally accepted fact. It would still just be your personal belief, which as far as anyone else is concerned, may or may not be true. That's not something you can base a law upon.
    It is a scientific fact that removing organs from a dead person will not negatively affect the dead person.... that is a fact.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    It is a scientific fact that removing organs from a dead person will not negatively affect the dead person.... that is a fact.
    You saying this doesn't make it true.

    Unless someone has actually observed this (i.e. died, had their organs removed, and compared their experiences to someone who has died without having their organs removed, and reported their findings back to us), it is not a scientific fact. Something is only a scientific fact if it is observed directly.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    and I said that argument could be extended to argue people could be killed for their bed. So the person I quoted (cant see if it was you) would also have to avoid using hospital beds?
    Except I would need to be dead for someone to take my heart whereas I could get thrown out on the street if all they wanted was my bed.

    Also, it's hospital staff maintaining the wards, whereas whoever hires the hit on me can be anyone in the extensive criminal underworld in this country and the rest of the UK. They're not vetted staff. It can be made to look like accidents. There are a vast number of ways people can be targeted and they'll be untraceable because they know that sooner or later my body will turn up in the morgue and my organs will then go into whoever I was murdered for.

    A close eye is put on current donors, that kind of regulation isn't possible when there's another 53 million people from England and 10 million from the rest of the UK who are suddenly donors.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    You saying this doesn't make it true.
    I didn't say me saying this makes it true- but it is true....

    And- anyone who doesn't like this idea/is a bit weird can opt-out..... sorted!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    I didn't say me saying this makes it true- but it is true....
    Why should anyone believe you?

    And- anyone who doesn't like this idea/is a bit weird can opt-out..... sorted!
    I already responded to this suggestion in my post at the top of this page (No. 101)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    If we're lacking in organ donors and we're trying to get more organs from people who are willing to donate but just haven't got round to signing the form, then personally I don't see the problem in having a mandatory organ donation form that everyone has to fill out when they turn 18, where they have to tick a box saying either "Yes, I consent to my organs being taken from me after death" or "No I do not consent".

    That way, you don't waste any organs - everyone who is willing to be a donor is a donor, and everyone who isn't willing to be a donor is not a donor. We wouldn't have the problem of trying to guess whether someone is happy for their organs to be taken, nor the issue of whether or not we should presume consent. Consent is either explicitly given, or explicitly withheld.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think they should keep the opt in method. It's not exactly hard to do,pretty sure that there is a box you can tick when filling in a boots advantage card that puts you on. I think they should offer this on more loyalty cards and maybe driving licenses that way people don't have to go out of there way to fill in a whole application forms.

    My main reason for not signing up is that my mom doesn't want me or my sisters to be organ donors because she believes that doctors may give up easier if you are in an accident and they need to resuscitate you if they know that you are on the organ donor list and they can save more lives by letting you go. She has promised me that if I do die she will let them use my organs though.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I wouldn't be happy with it being automatic and them having right to your organs when you die by default. I think there should be a advertising campaign to convince people to join up (you already get told about signing up when you apply for your driving licence.), the idea of donating my organs is a brilliant think and I'm more than happy to do so however I would like the option to chose to do it because they are MY organs and they shouldn't automatically become someone elses when I die.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    Then you opt out?
    Then they wouldn't be automatic rights. If keeping your own property requires effort on your part, then your rights to it aren't 'automatic'.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    If we're lacking in organ donors and we're trying to get more organs from people who are willing to donate but just haven't got round to signing the form, then personally I don't see the problem in having a mandatory organ donation form that everyone has to fill out when they turn 18, where they have to tick a box saying either "Yes, I consent to my organs being taken from me after death" or "No I do not consent".

    That way, you don't waste any organs - everyone who is willing to be a donor is a donor, and everyone who isn't willing to be a donor is not a donor. We wouldn't have the problem of trying to guess whether someone is happy for their organs to be taken, nor the issue of whether or not we should presume consent. Consent is either explicitly given, or explicitly withheld.
    So I have to fill out a form to retain ownership of my own organs? Nice. Also to consider with your proposal is that it makes things too definitive: someone might say 'no' to that when they're 18, and then drop dead when they're 70. At that point, they might not have a problem with it, and their family might know this, but they would be powerless to act.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tufc)
    So I have to fill out a form to retain ownership of my own organs? Nice. Also to consider with your proposal is that it makes things too definitive: someone might say 'no' to that when they're 18, and then drop dead when they're 70. At that point, they might not have a problem with it, and their family might know this, but they would be powerless to act.
    If you die intestate, who gets your property? You must make an effort to make sure you decide where your material possessions go. Society always makes rules for the benefit of society, we all have to make efforts. It has already been pointed out on a previous post that an opt out system, allows for more organs.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nimrodstower)
    If you die intestate, who gets your property? You must make an effort to make sure you decide where your material possessions go. Society always makes rules for the benefit of society, we all have to make efforts. It has already been pointed out on a previous post that an opt out system, allows for more organs.
    It's reductio ad absurdum to compare a house, a car etc. to components of one's own body. You are born with organs; they are part of your individual being. The only thing relating to property that you are born with is the right to own it, not the property itself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tufc)
    It's reductio ad absurdum to compare a house, a car etc. to components of one's own body. You are born with organs; they are part of your individual being. The only thing relating to property that you are born with is the right to own it, not the property itself.
    You are obviously not reading the previous posts, we have tarzooni with his analogy of material property, and now you with your negation of that analogy, which was the tack I took, yet you are both supporting the same cause. At least have some consistency.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nimrodstower)
    You are obviously not reading the previous posts, we have tarzooni with his analogy of material property, and now you with your negation of that analogy, which was the tack I took, yet you are both supporting the same cause. At least have some consistency.
    I don't have to have the same reasons as sympathisers to be right.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with this. There's so much stuff about "look at my flimsy half arsed evidence for evil capitalists stealing organs from the poor south Americans backed up with emotional weight designed to make people feel guilty for being critical" when these people could actually do something constructive by arguing for this sensible policy rather than using the issue as a political football.
 
 
 
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 rather give up salt or pepper?
  • 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

    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.