Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

A proposal to scrap donor cards and replace them with a system of 'presumed consent' watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    What I find most worrying is this willingness to allow government to presume things on our behalf. "No donar card? Well, I presume that means you'd like to be cut up into little pieces for the benefit of others"

    So what's next?

    "No will"? Well, I presume that's because you'd like to hand your entire estate over to Gordon Brown.

    I don't like this presumptive approach one bit!
    Regardless hwo you twist and turn it, its a choice that will determien whether another human will live or die. One thing is teh rights of people to decide about their own organs, but what about those in desperate need of a transplant? In practice what you are saying is that we should leave these peopel to die a painfull death merely because perhaps a person who havnt made a decision on organ donation would have opposed it. Really, how strongly could they have been against it if they have not bothered to opt out? Is the possibility that a person who has lived his life without stating his opinion on organ donation would greatly oppose it if asked enough to justify a legislation that will lead to teh death of a lot of innocent people? The truth is that most people do not eaven bother to think about it. Most people simply do not sign the donor card because they can't be bothered to do so or because they have not given it any thought. I think i will go to the closest hospital and sign mine tomorrow.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    if you are ever in hospital in dire need of a blood transfusion, remember that. i suppose then you'll at least be in full ownership of your corpse.
    I give blood for your infomation, but i don't think you should be forced into it. Its not theirs to take from someone, if they don't give blood for what ever reason its their choice!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vladek)
    I give blood for your infomation, but i don't think you should be forced into it. Its not theirs to take from someone, if they don't give blood for what ever reason its their choice!
    giving blood and opting out for organ donation are two completely different things. with regard to the former, most people don't actively exercise their "choice" not to give blood - it more often than not transpires down to the fact they'd be put out if they did it (aside from people not meeting criteria). it's just a good thing there are some people around who choose to give regularly.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Organ donation is a gift it is not someone's right to recieve an organ.

    Blood donation is a gift it is not someones right to recieve a transfusion.

    Yes of course if i was in need of an organ transplant (Which would involve masses of blood) i'd hope that someone had an organ donation card and that other people had given blood. But it wasn't my right to recieve any of that, they gave it of their own free will, and you know that they wanted to give it if they carried a card.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vladek)
    Organ donation is a gift it is not someone's right to recieve an organ.

    Blood donation is a gift it is not someones right to recieve a transfusion.

    Yes of course if i was in need of an organ transplant (Which would involve masses of blood) i'd hope that someone had an organ donation card and that other people had given blood. But it wasn't my right to recieve any of that, they gave it of their own free will, and you know that they wanted to give it if they carried a card.
    Ok, let me put it this way. Your a doctor. An otherwise healthy mancomes in with a severe hearth atack. It soon becomes obvious that the respirator will only be able to keep the patient alive for some time and a hearth transplant will be necessary. Now, another man just died in a car accident and has been sent to the same hospital. He has the exact matching bloodgroup and tissue type, but he has not signed his donor card (nor opted out). Do you now beleive that the law should be such that it is prohibited for the doctor to perform a hearth transplant saving the patients life, and simply leaving the healthy hearth to rot in some mourge?

    Please, if the only argument you have in favour of such a legislation is that organ donation is a gift, then quite frankly go screw yourself. Presuming a person would have opted out if asked to make a decision will over just a few years time be the same as judging thousands of people to death merely because you have some idealistic philosophical opinion that it is more important to make sure that people actively agree than it is to save innocents from a painful death. This is a question of priorities.

    Either you considder human lives more important than the fact that all transplants have been explicitly agreed upon by the donor, or you say that it is more important to save lives and thus those who have some weird selfish reason not to be an organ donor should at least bother to spare 1 minute of their life saying so explicitly so that thousands can be saved in those cases where peopel have not stated an opinion.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vladek)
    You might say religous reasons are bull but what if they're actually right? What if you're wrong and you destroyed their chances of the after life? Who are you to be so arrogant as to presume they're wrong?
    What if everyonr NOT participating in Organ donation are sent crashing down in teh burning flames of hell? In this case we will save the souls of millions merely by assuming they would have agreed to organ donation. In addition we would have saved thousands of lives because there would be more donors available. The suggestion is not to make donation compulsory, it is to presume peopel would agree to it, rather than to presume they would disagree. Assuming people woudl agree is no worse than assuming peopel would disagree. In fact, it is better as it will save many lives.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I consider the wishs of the living person should be upheld in live as in death. If that person is a unknown case then you should not assault their corpse, steal their organs just so someone else can live.

    What about those Babies organs that a hospital stole, they cut open the babies and stored their organs with out the permision of anyone. Is that ok i mean after all they are dead arent they.

    Like i keep saying, its a gift not a right. People are born and people die, its how things work. it would be nice if people you loved didn't die but unfortuantly they do.

    My organs are mine, i was born with them, they grew inside me they are a part of me what i do with them is my choice. If someone doesn't have a donor card they ask the relitives, if they say no they say no.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    What if everyonr NOT participating in Organ donation are sent crashing down in teh burning flames of hell? In this case we will save the souls of millions merely by assuming they would have agreed to organ donation. In addition we would have saved thousands of lives because there would be more donors available. The suggestion is not to make donation compulsory, it is to presume peopel would agree to it, rather than to presume they would disagree. Assuming people woudl agree is no worse than assuming peopel would disagree. In fact, it is better as it will save many lives.
    No, its not your choice to make. Who are you to say whats right and whats wrong? Its up to the individual to choose. Like the other guy said do you presume guilt and have to prove inocence?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vladek)
    No, its not your choice to make. Who are you to say whats right and whats wrong? Its up to the individual to choose. Like the other guy said do you presume guilt and have to prove inocence?
    You are the one presuming peopel would not donate organs. If you are to justify this ( as the consequences of such a policy is that many peopel will die) you will have to show why it is worse assuming someone would donate than it is to assume someone will not. If you assume in every unknown case that the person will nto donate then you have sentenced several future patients to detah. Also, people can still chose if you assume they would donate, it merely means that you assume people would help others if they have not stated their wishes. When it comes to guilt and inocence you presume inocence BECAUSE OF THE CONSEQUENCES. We would destroy the lives of several innocent people if we assumed everyone not able to prove their inocence guilty. Similarily we will destroy the life opportunities of thousands if we assume everyone who has not signed their donor cards were against organ donation.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vladek)
    Like i keep saying, its a gift not a right. People are born and people die, its how things work. it would be nice if people you loved didn't die but unfortuantly they do.
    Does this mean you should not try to help them? Why exactly is it so bad to considder a persons organs public property after he/she dies? Just curious. Im not saying we should, but say we do. Say we do considder organs to be a loan from the NHS, say we do make organ donorship compulsory. Why exactly is it so horrible? Why should people absolutely have a right to chose on this matter? After life is irrelevant, cus it coudl just as well be the case that you destroy a persons afterlife by NOT taking their organs. We have no more reason to beleive the opposite. What exactly is the problem with taking the organs from a dead person. We have NO reason to beleive he/she would still need them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Are you god? (Or a god)

    Who are you to dictate what is right and wrong? What people should and shouldn't do? Donation is a gift not a right. The current system means you have to actively choose to donate, your system just assumes you want to with out asking, taking without asking is stealing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Does this mean you should not try to help them? Why exactly is it so bad to considder a persons organs public property after he/she dies? Just curious. Im not saying we should, but say we do. Say we do considder organs to be a loan from the NHS, say we do make organ donorship compulsory. Why exactly is it so horrible? Why should people absolutely have a right to chose on this matter? After life is irrelevant, cus it coudl just as well be the case that you destroy a persons afterlife by NOT taking their organs. We have no more reason to beleive the opposite. What exactly is the problem with taking the organs from a dead person. We have NO reason to beleive he/she would still need them.
    We have no reason to believe that they won't need them eiether.

    You are not god, you are not mother nature, you don't know and i don't know what happens after death so quit being so arrogant.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vladek)
    We have no reason to believe that they won't need them eiether.

    You are not god, you are not mother nature, you don't know and i don't know what happens after death so quit being so arrogant.
    Exactly. we dont know, so therefore it is merely rediculous to make decisions based on assumptions about it. You are willing to condem thousands to death merely because its impossible to proove that there is no afterlife. You knwo what. Its impossible to proove that me taking antibiotics would not destroy your afterlife either, does this mean I should not be allowed to take them? You cannot use the opportunity of an afterlife in order to argue against organ donation because there is an infinite ammount of equally possible (but unknowable and unprovable) scenarios which support the opposite case. The only thing we do know for certain is that a lot of peopel will die earlier than necessary if you do not assume organ donation. I myself considder it completely immoral to deny thousand medical care merely because you do not know all the consequences of a choice. You NEVER know all the consequences of a choice, you have to base a decision on the few consequences you DO know, and this is why organ donation should be assumed if a person has not stated his opinion.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vladek)
    Are you god? (Or a god)

    Who are you to dictate what is right and wrong? What people should and shouldn't do? Donation is a gift not a right. The current system means you have to actively choose to donate, your system just assumes you want to with out asking, taking without asking is stealing.
    You are allowed to steal if its the only way to save yoru life. No court would convict you for killing in self defence. If you are in a situation where you can make a choice betwen saving your own life and that of another you will not be sentenced for saving yourself. Why then, should it not be legal to save yourself by an organ transplant merely because the diseased has not agreed to it? Why are you allowed to kill if it is in order to save yourself, but not allowed to take organs from a dead body? Hippocracy is what I call it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vladek)
    Basically an Opt out program means the my organs whilst i live are merely on loan to me from the NHS and when I die I have to give them back to them as they're not mine.

    They're my organs and i'll do what ever the hell I like with them, be it donate them or not donate them. I CHOOSE to donate them as they are mine to give. No one elses, mine, my organs my choice.

    You might say religous reasons are bull but what if they're actually right? What if you're wrong and you destroyed their chances of the after life? Who are you to be so arrogant as to presume they're wrong?
    Me Me Me Me ME!!!

    An all to prevalent attitude.

    Your posts reek of religion though, so I guess I'll put it down to insanity.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    You are allowed to steal if its the only way to save yoru life. No court would convict you for killing in self defence.
    You mean under necessity.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    Me Me Me Me ME!!!

    An all to prevalent attitude.

    Your posts reek of religion though, so I guess I'll put it down to insanity.
    Actually it should be

    NOONE, but perhaps ME! , NOONE, but perhaps ME! , NOONE, but perhaps ME! , NOONE, but perhaps ME!

    I quite honestly cannot see why one would not chose to be certain one could helps someone, in front of not doing so merely because its impossible to prove it woant hurt you.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Turns out Norway assumes you woudl donate unless you have stated otherwise. The only register is by a non-profit private organisation however. Well, doesnt matter Im sending it in tomorrow. Hwo do you go about in Britain, is it simply to visit the closest hospital and ask to sign up ?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Actually it should be

    NOONE, but perhaps ME! , NOONE, but perhaps ME! , NOONE, but perhaps ME! , NOONE, but perhaps ME!

    I quite honestly cannot see why one would not chose to be certain one could helps someone, in front of not doing so merely because its impossible to prove it woant hurt you.
    I have choosen, but it was an active choice on my part, i don't want to do it by default. It should be an active choice on the part of others. Just becouse you don't believe that you'll need your organs in an after life (If there even is one) and i don't believe i'll need mine, doesn't mean you can take that belief away from someone else.

    Fact is as cold as it may seem that person needing a heart transplant say, is dead, if someone chooses to give them a heart after they die then great. If not its a tradjedy but its just the way that life is. Just assuming someone wants to do something becouse they never said no is wrong.

    If someone punchs me in the face is that ok becouse i never signed a form opting out of being punched in the face? Is it ok to steal my wallet cos i never signed a form saying don't steal my wallet?

    "sorry sir your wallet is mine becouse you forgot to sign form 7b, its quiet clear" If i wanted him to have my wallet i'd of given it to him.

    (Killing in self defense can bring a conviction, you're aloud to use "Reasonable force" to defend yourself, if someone hits you, you can't proceed to beat them to death in self defense)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Turns out Norway assumes you woudl donate unless you have stated otherwise. The only register is by a non-profit private organisation however. Well, doesnt matter Im sending it in tomorrow. Hwo do you go about in Britain, is it simply to visit the closest hospital and ask to sign up ?
    Nah britain you just visit a chemist and get a donor card, carry it around in your wallet and they check it when you die. They also ask your family so its a good idea to tell them that thats what you want to do. I'm not sure if there is a register to sign or anything though.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

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.