Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Aye.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    But one can remove themselves from the register if they wish.
    They can, but as extensive behavioural economics research has shown, the default option (in this case, being in), is often ignored and not changed due to human nature... Knowing that, I don't think it's right that the state just tries to capitalise on that...

    I do agree that more organ donation is needed, but I'd much rather see it through trying to boost the number of people opting in. Would definitely consider optional financial compensation for the families of those who do donate, as well as even suggesting that when someone goes to see their GP, or a clinic, that they are asked each and every time by who they see, if they would consider opting in...
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Nay, I have always been against having an opt-out system, mainly because most people will not bother, and they will stick to the 'default option' of opting in. The state does not own somebody, nor does the state own a body, and people should have the full choice, which in my opinion, means needing to opt-in to organ donation if they wish to donate. People ask why I care about default donation when I really do not care about donating, the answer is because I think a lot of people would not think about it, and it is something that people should think about when making this decision. It is a classic example of how the affect of a box being ticked affects the outcome for the vast majority of people. If there is a default option, most people will not even think about it, people have to actively make the decision in a situation like this: people need to think.

    I would much rather support something where there is an incentive to make the decision, perhaps the following: when you register to vote, you cannot submit the form unless you have ticked either yes, or no. If you do not tick any, it will not submit, and if you do not register to vote then I would probably be okay with allowing that person's organs to be used.

    mobbsy91 I hope this demonstration of your views is clear, concise, and coherent enough for your liking.
    Wow... if you look at my latest post, that's almost exactly what I've written :rofl: So yeh, a very good demonstration of my views! Thank you!
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    Nay. If they want to be added onto the list then they should ask to do so, they shouldn't just be put automatically on the register against their will - no way.
    People forget. People mean to but don't bother. People would if they knew how. People never really thought about it. People don't care.

    And most of them get cremated so they certainly have no huge attachment to their organs (implying that the above most likely constitutes the reason as to why more people don't sign up).

    The people who do care will, with the helpful information provided by the Health Department, apply to opt-out. Does who don't have the chance to save a life upon their own death.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nirvana1989-1994)
    I wouldn't have reported you for being rude if you didn't swear at me.
    And they say that lefties are special snowflakes. :rolleyes: I hope this stays a safe space for you.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    And they say that lefties are special snowflakes. :rolleyes: I hope this stays a safe space for you.
    Nah, you clearly got annoyed at me because I have a different opinion to you. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I am all for organ donation, but I am not entirely sure putting people on the register automatically is the best idea.

    There are a lot of people that can't donate for medical reasons. I am one of them. I had Hodgkin's Lymphoma and in case of a relapse we don't know about at the time of donation, I'm not allowed to donate any organs or blood ever. --- Who would be responsible for taking me off the register? Would it my the government/NHS responsibility to look through everyone's medical records to see if they're fit to donate? That would cost thousands and the NHS is already under pressure. So should we make it the individuals responsibility to withdraw their name from the register citing medical conditions? I never had to withdraw myself as I just simply didn't apply. If I was automatically added, would I remember to make time to withdraw? You can'r garuntee everyone will remember. Thus someone could end up with a *****y organ.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    They can, but as extensive behavioural economics research has shown, the default option (in this case, being in), is often ignored and not changed due to human nature... Knowing that, I don't think it's right that the state just tries to capitalise on that...

    I do agree that more organ donation is needed, but I'd much rather see it through trying to boost the number of people opting in. Would definitely consider optional financial compensation for the families of those who do donate, as well as even suggesting that when someone goes to see their GP, or a clinic, that they are asked each and every time by who they see, if they would consider opting in...
    RayApparently I ended up writing it anyway... but mainly this ^^ and what Nigel also said very well for me...!
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Perhaps unlike others, I am rather bored of repeating the same argument for something which I feel as though has been submitted twice in my time here... And as such, I have enough confidence that I don't need to try and boost my intellectual confidence by arguing it again. Though yes, I would agree, he is rather energetic.
    Btw, I looked in Hansard and I can't find any posts by you in the thread from when this was last proposed. Maybe that's due to Hansard missing readings but either way it looks like I'll be deprived of your surely ingenious argumentation.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    How awful that saving lives is the default option.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    They can, but as extensive behavioural economics research has shown, the default option (in this case, being in), is often ignored and not changed due to human nature... Knowing that, I don't think it's right that the state just tries to capitalise on that...

    I do agree that more organ donation is needed, but I'd much rather see it through trying to boost the number of people opting in. Would definitely consider optional financial compensation for the families of those who do donate, as well as even suggesting that when someone goes to see their GP, or a clinic, that they are asked each and every time by who they see, if they would consider opting in...
    Exactly. Hence why we are proposing this bill in the first place. The Department of Health has put measures in place to warn every citizen about the change if this bill passes so everyone will have a choice of whether they would like to stay on the register or not. Annoying a few people because they couldn't be bothered to remove themselves from the register is far less important than saving lives. There's no need to waste even more NHS money when we can achieve more effective results this way instead.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Btw, I looked in Hansard and I can't find any posts by you in the thread from when this was last proposed. Maybe that's due to Hansard missing readings but either way it looks like I'll be deprived of your surely ingenious argumentation.
    Aye, I've just had a look and I guess I'm just very deluded (or bored of seeing this Bill and having this argument both on here, and IRL...)

    In any case, see above - I would never want you to miss my ingenuity.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nirvana1989-1994)
    True, it just feels a bit intrusive, I guess, that people are already put on the list-even if they can opt out.
    It may cause a few people annoyance but it's really simple for them to remove themselves from the register if they wish and it's a very small price to pay if many lives will be saved.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Btw, I looked in Hansard and I can't find any posts by you in the thread from when this was last proposed. Maybe that's due to Hansard missing readings but either way it looks like I'll be deprived of your surely ingenious argumentation.
    Mobbsy's argumentation is written in B966 Human Transplant (England) Bill 2016 from April 2016.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nirvana1989-1994)
    Nah, you clearly got annoyed at me because I have a different opinion to you. :rolleyes:
    I do find your opinion 'annoying' - the idea that 'eww that's icky' is what helps you justify opposing a policy that will save people's lives makes my blood boil.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Don't see much of an issue with this
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Mobbsy's argumentation is written in B966 Human Transplant (England) Bill 2016 from April 2016.
    Gracias. :laugh:

    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Aye, I've just had a look and I guess I'm just very deluded (or bored of seeing this Bill and having this argument both on here, and IRL...)

    In any case, see above - I would never want you to miss my ingenuity.
    Nige has redeemed you. However it was rather disappointing to read as your argument against (most people won't bother to change) is a very strong argument in favour.

    You realize mostly people get cremated right?

    (Original post by Obiejess)
    How awful that saving lives is the default option.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Hear, hear!
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I do find your opinion 'annoying' - the idea that 'eww that's icky' is what helps you justify opposing a policy that will save people's lives makes my blood boil.
    You do, which is why we're having this argument in the first place.
    Also, did I say that? No I didn't, and that wasn't what I was getting at either.

    It makes my blood boil that you can't come up with a proper argument, other than some insult 'safe space leftie'.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Gracias. :laugh:



    Nige has redeemed you. However it was rather disappointing to read as your argument against (most people won't bother to change) is a very strong argument in favour.

    You realize mostly people get cremated right?



    Hear, hear!
    Nigel saves me again!!

    Was in fact pretty much the same argument as I've said now :rofl:

    I don't know the stats, but that wouldn't surprise me in the least - in anticipation of why you've said that, my reasons against aren't for vanity reasons...!
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    We beat you to this 6 years ago: https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/sho....php?t=1638151
 
 
 
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: January 26, 2017
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • 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

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.