Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

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:
    The world is fast becoming over populated as it is , the last thing we need are more things to help more people survive before we at least find more renewable energy sources / technology .
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by de_monies)
    I'm going to be pedantic, but what if they speak Welsh or Gaelic?
    I haven't heard of anyone only speaking those. I'm guessing think would be available in Welsh, Braille and such like most things. Tbh the assumption you can speak English a fair one, its the official language of the UK.

    Also
    We know that in most cases families will agree to donation if they knew that was their loved one's wish. If the family, or those closest to the person who has died, object to the donation when the person who has died has given their explicit permission, either by telling relatives, close friends or clinical staff, or by carrying a donor card or registering their wishes on the NHS Organ Donor Register, healthcare professionals will discuss the matter sensitively with them. They will be encouraged to accept the dead person's wishes and it will be made clear that they do not have the legal right to veto or overrule those wishes. There may, nevertheless, be cases where it would be inappropriate for donation to go ahead.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nimrodstower)
    It is obviously not fine as it is, there are a lack of organs available for transplant, and the result is people who could live a decent life are living a death sentence. I would have thought that religious people would be the first to volunteer their organs, but that is the religious fallacy of LOVE.
    No in this world people die of hunger,thirst,war and murder so many things that can be prevented. If someone needs an organ and there is not one in time then im sorry its just the way it is. Im not on the organ donors list for the simple reason i dont want my body cut open when i die thats it. Not because i dont care about people who need them just i dont want it done to me and thats my choice. Thats the way it should be.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ziggy2252)
    No in this world people die of hunger,thirst,war and murder so many things that can be prevented. If someone needs an organ and there is not one in time then im sorry its just the way it is. Im not on the organ donors list for the simple reason i dont want my body cut open when i die thats it. Not because i dont care about people who need them just i dont want it done to me and thats my choice. Thats the way it should be.
    My wife uses the same argument, she's selfish too.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    In Austria they use an opt out system and 99.98% of people are registered, but in Germany they use opt in and its rate is 12%. Which system do you think saves more lives?

    Most people realise that after they die they have little need of their organs and would rather someone else was able to experience a better standard of life.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by malteser87)
    Whether you're alive or dead, it's still your body and you should have the decision on what happens.

    I fully agree with organ donation but I think it's wrong to opt people in at birth... Thousands of opportunities come up to sign up as an organ doner and there are many events to raise awareness. But you should leave the decision to the person. They may have different & personal reasons not to sign up.


    I know this won't be a popular viewpoint, but I kind of think the whole notion of ownership after death is pretty ridiculous. When I'm dead, I'll be dead. Do what you want with me if it's going to help society/other people. Even if it's just opening me up to educate people on the human body. Why does it matter? I won't "own" my body anymore, it will just be an object.

    The most annoying phrase to me wrt organ donation is "I just don't like the idea." It makes it sound like the person hasn't even given it serious thought. Sure, the idea of someone cutting my eyes out or whatever is kind of gruesome, but surely the idea of bestowing life/sight/whatever on another human being is a lot more powerful than the idea that one day something will happen to you that you won't know about or feel?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nimrodstower)
    My wife uses the same argument, she's selfish too.
    oh soo anyone who does not agree with your view is selfish? maybe you should also respect her decision on her own body.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ziggy2252)
    oh soo anyone who does not agree with your view is selfish? maybe you should also respect her decision on her own body.
    On some issues, Yes, her view is entirely selfish, she is unrepentant on it too. It aint going to do her any good though, as my kids agree with me and will consign her to the organ removers.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    While we're at it, why don't we also presume that you're perfectly happy with someone breaking into your house and taking your laptop, phone and other personal posessions? After all, you never said they couldn't...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ziggy2252)
    No in this world people die of hunger,thirst,war and murder so many things that can be prevented. If someone needs an organ and there is not one in time then im sorry its just the way it is. Im not on the organ donors list for the simple reason i dont want my body cut open when i die thats it. Not because i dont care about people who need them just i dont want it done to me and thats my choice. Thats the way it should be.
    Say something suddenly happened to your health and you needed an organ transplant - would you be willing to allow it to happen, considering you are not an organ donor yourself


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    While we're at it, why don't we also presume that you're perfectly happy with someone breaking into your house and taking your laptop, phone and other personal posessions? After all, you never said they couldn't...
    What a most stupid and crass comparison.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    While we're at it, why don't we also presume that you're perfectly happy with someone breaking into your house and taking your laptop, phone and other personal posessions? After all, you never said they couldn't...
    This is a stupid comparison to be honest. Somebody breaking into your house is different to being an organ donor be default.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    While we're at it, why don't we also presume that you're perfectly happy with someone breaking into your house and taking your laptop, phone and other personal posessions? After all, you never said they couldn't...
    The stupidest thing I've ever read.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jaegon Targaryen)
    The world is fast becoming over populated as it is , the last thing we need are more things to help more people survive before we at least find more renewable energy sources / technology .
    Well by that, why not go the whole hog and introduce a euthanasia system to decrease the surplus population, the Ebeneezer Project sounds good.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Studentus-anonymous)
    I disagree, a donation loses it's point if it is in fact obligated coercion. It also sets a dangerous precedence that the state owns your body, in death and then perhaps in life.

    Unacceptable.


    I am genuinely sorry for the people born/suffering things that cause them to want replacement organs but everyone is born with the body they get and there is never a guarantee, a right to have other people's body bits.

    I'm sure kneejerk moralists and medical practitioners with a cold logical conveyor belt approach to medical practice think that taking people's organs and bodies without their express will is a grand idea, but we already have a situation in this country where medical services are notorious for at best neglecting elderly/terminally ill patients and at worst abusing and consciously trying to get rid of them.


    Do you want to live in a country where your beloved grandma, or mother, father, anyone could be 'hastened' on their way to the grave because the local trust needs organs to save a kid or someone rather than offer your relative the best chance at life and best care?




    So yeah back to my original point, I guess it's not popular on here, and I'm pretty liberally minded, but I think assumptions over ownership of a persons body, in life or recent death is offensive and dangerous and completely ignores the point of donation.

    We may be gone but I look at it this way: If someone doesn't have a right to my body or any part of it in life just to improve/lengthen their own, they sure as hell don't have a right to my corpse right after death. If the law can consider my last will after my passing, than it can consider the fact that unless I say so, my body is for my family and friends to decide to dispose of and mourn.


    A system in which family can offer up organs if not forbidden in will and where families can't legally block organ donation by opted in organ donor card carriers is how things should be.

    Edit: Also I find the statements like "there is a shortage of organs for transplant" odd and amusing. There is ALWAYS a SURPLUS OF ORGANS because the natural state of affairs is there are no organs whatsoever for donation and people lived and died with the lot they were given.

    it's a wonderful thing that transplants exist at all and people should be thankful, instead of getting greedy and treading on peoples rights to their own bodies out of emotional desperation. Mortality is a fact of ALL life, we will all die eventually.
    Couldn't their death already be "hastened" for the bed space?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    If it were up to me there wouldn't be an opt-out; all organs would be taken after death. However, I suspect that such a policy would meet incredibly strong opposition, therefore I think we'll just have to make-do with the opt-out system.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shanij)
    Say something suddenly happened to your health and you needed an organ transplant - would you be willing to allow it to happen, considering you are not an organ donor yourself


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    thats a bit of a silly question? ofcourse i would be happy to receive an organ. But if there were none available i would not be blaming all the people who do not donate organs i would see it quite simply as the way it is. What the hell are you getting at that people who dont give organs should not receive organs? let people ******* decide for themselves!
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I think so too.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Studentus-anonymous)
    I disagree, a donation loses it's point if it is in fact obligated coercion.
    Noun

    coercion (plural coercions)

    1. (not countable) Actual or threatened force for the purpose of compelling action by another person; the act of coercing.
    2. (law, not countable) Use of physical or moral force to compel a person to do something, or to abstain from doing something, thereby depriving that person of the exercise of free will.
    3. (countable) A specific instance of coercing.
    4. (computing, countable) Conversion of a value of one data type to a value of another data type.


    Since coercion is an act to make a person do a thing, I can't see how it applies to dead people who by their very nature can't do anything.

    (Original post by Studentus-anonymous)
    It also sets a dangerous precedence that the state owns your body, in death and then perhaps in life.
    Well, I am my body, hence I seize to exist after I die. Hence I honest don't care what people do with it. Though preferably they'd do something useful like erm... saving lives.

    (Original post by Studentus-anonymous)
    Unacceptable.
    Slippery slope arguments don't work on me.

    (Original post by Studentus-anonymous)
    I am genuinely sorry for the people born/suffering things that cause them to want replacement organs but everyone is born with the body they get and there is never a guarantee, a right to have other people's body bits.
    I hate to sound... whatever the word is... but as I said, people seize to exist after death. With this in mind, nobody "owns" those organs. In life, I can understand, however.

    (Original post by Studentus-anonymous)
    I'm sure kneejerk moralists and medical practitioners with a cold logical conveyor belt approach to medical practice think that taking people's organs and bodies without their express will is a grand idea, but we already have a situation in this country where medical services are notorious for at best neglecting elderly/terminally ill patients and at worst abusing and consciously trying to get rid of them.
    [citation needed]

    (Original post by Studentus-anonymous)
    Do you want to live in a country where your beloved grandma, or mother, father, anyone could be 'hastened' on their way to the grave because the local trust needs organs to save a kid or someone rather than offer your relative the best chance at life and best care?
    Of course not. But again, that's a slippery slope fallacy.

    (Original post by Studentus-anonymous)
    So yeah back to my original point, I guess it's not popular on here, and I'm pretty liberally minded, but I think assumptions over ownership of a persons body, in life or recent death is offensive and dangerous and completely ignores the point of donation.

    We may be gone but I look at it this way: If someone doesn't have a right to my body or any part of it in life just to improve/lengthen their own, they sure as hell don't have a right to my corpse right after death. If the law can consider my last will after my passing, than it can consider the fact that unless I say so, my body is for my family and friends to decide to dispose of and mourn.
    But when you're dead you're no longer conscious. You won't feel unhappy or anything, because you're dead. I can sympathize with the families of people who have died, however, at the end of the day, the suffering caused by letting the organs rot is much greater.

    Besides, I suspect somebody is going to dig up your grave one day anyway. Do you think it's wrong when archeologists dig up the bodies of people who lived hundreds of years ago for research. Maybe in a few hundred years people will be digging up our graves to learn more about the British people? the only difference between compulsory organ donation and bodies dug up in archeological digs is the time-scale.

    (Original post by Studentus-anonymous)
    Mortality is a fact of ALL life, we will all die eventually.
    Exactly, but what's wrong with prolonging it?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ziggy2252)
    thats a bit of a silly question? ofcourse i would be happy to receive an organ. But if there were none available i would not be blaming all the people who do not donate organs i would see it quite simply as the way it is. What the hell are you getting at that people who dont give organs should not receive organs? let people ******* decide for themselves!
    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
 
 
 
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
Poll
Which pet is the best?

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.