Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Wiki Support Team
    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 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.
    mobbsy91


    I think tying the donation issue with voter registration is a substantially messier way of doing it - not to mention less effective. The system that already exists in some places is one that works.

    I think you're placing a whole lot of value on what is essentially a vague principle that no one actually cares about (post-death self-determination?) to shoot down something that, I don't think anyone will deny, is going to help people in a meaningful way. If we weight up the lives saved and/or substantially improved with whatever cons you are imagining, I cannot see how anyone could calculate against the policy.

    Nige's points about how we implement the policy in practice are ones I take on board and will discuss with the other members of the government.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nirvana1989-1994)
    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'.
    You'll notice this thread has several examples of me making 'proper' arguments and the bill has an argument in favour in the notes - as it should. The onus is on members of the Opposition to give opposing arguments.

    If you feel your point is being misrepresented then you should clarify it - but you're the one who said it sounds stupid, not me.

    (PS. Basically saying the same safe-space insult to me is kinda weak, especially when it doesn't really make sense in the context - you had a wide variety of politics-related insults to go for ranging from 'bleeding heart liberal' to something about being an authoritarian statist)
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    We beat you to this 6 years ago: https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/sho....php?t=1638151
    I wish I hadn't seen this 'cos we're going to need to expand the bill and now it's going to be really hard to not to plagarise - but then again that was also a Labour-led government so we probably wouldn't feel too guilty.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    You'll notice this thread has several examples of me making 'proper' arguments and the bill has an argument in favour in the notes - as it should. The onus is on members of the Opposition to give opposing arguments.

    If you feel your point is being misrepresented then you should clarify it - but you're the one who said it sounds stupid, not me.

    (PS. Basically saying the same safe-space insult to me is kinda weak, especially when it doesn't really make sense in the context - you had a wide variety of politics-related insults to go for ranging from 'bleeding heart liberal' to something about being an authoritarian statist)
    I'm talking about the argument you started with me.

    Yes, I did. But, there was still no need for the swearing.
    This is supposed to be a debate after all, not a childish fist fight.

    I don't quite get your last point.
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I wish I hadn't seen this 'cos we're going to need to expand the bill and now it's going to be really hard to not to plagarise - but then again that was also a Labour-led government so we probably wouldn't feel too guilty.
    I don't remember which of us took the lead on that one, but please do feel free to borrow from it whatever you wish to!
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nirvana1989-1994)
    I'm talking about the argument you started with me.

    Yes, I did. But, there was still no need for the swearing.
    This is supposed to be a debate after all, not a childish fist fight.

    I don't quite get your last point.
    I didn't start an argument with you - if this was in Parliament that's the sort of thing you'd shout from the bench to heckle the Speaker. You made a point that you yourself described as 'stupid' and I reminded you that if you're opposing because of something so personal as feeling queasy then you can opt-out. I'll reply with a counter-argument if you start with an argument - as I did for Nigel and Mobbsy.

    As for the last point - it is strange to call me a 'safe space leftie' after reporting me for being 'rude' - no one (to my knowledge) has had so thin a skin here. It would have made more sense to use the other insults as there's actually some truth to them and then at least you would have been original.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    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.
    Yes people forget. If their names are automatically on the register some will forget. They won't even think about it if they are put on automatically.

    Organ donation is a choice and should always be opt-in. As aforementioned by Nigel, it's something that a person needs to think about. It should be up to the individual, not the state, to choose if they want to donate an organ.

    It is nice you want to save lives but this is not right way.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    I don't remember which of us took the lead on that one, but please do feel free to borrow from it whatever you wish to!
    :hat2: Gracias, mi heroe!
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    And really? Swearing at members? Lovely.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I didn't start an argument with you - if this was in Parliament that's the sort of thing you'd shout from the bench to heckle the Speaker. You made a point that you yourself described as 'stupid' and I reminded you that if you're opposing because of something so personal as feeling queasy then you can opt-out. I'll reply with a counter-argument if you start with an argument - as I did for Nigel and Mobbsy.

    As for the last point - it is strange to call me a 'safe space leftie' after reporting me for being 'rude' - no one (to my knowledge) has had so thin a skin here. It would have made more sense to use the other insults as there's actually some truth to them and then at least you would have been original.
    I never called you that. I was going on about you saying it to me. Why on earth would I call you that?

    I don't have a 'thin skin'. I just abhor rudeness, especially when it isn't warranted.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    You realize that it's an opt out system right? And that in our SOI the government has just announced a massive campaign - sending a leaflet explaining how people can opt out to every household in the country (akin to Cameron's EU leaflet). So no one who objects on religious grounds or objects strongly for any reason at all will be forced to potentially save a person's life.

    Persecution? Pftt.
    Nineteen Eighty-Four was meant to be a warning Ray, not an instruction manual.

    People have the right to be apathetic about whatever they choose: if people choose to abstain from voting all together, for example, I respect that, if people don't want to donate organs then that should also be respected.

    How dare you think that the state knows better about morality than the individuals who's organs are being harvested?

    Don't give me the whole "it's an opt in" BS; people just go for the default option because people are lazy, this is a veiled attempt at state tyranny, basically this:

    ImageUploadedByStudent Room1484347791.470562.jpg






    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Aye, a great bill that will hopefully save many lives.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    Yes people forget. If their names are automatically on the register some will forget. They won't even think about it if they are put on automatically.

    Organ donation is a choice and should always be opt-in. As aforementioned by Nigel, it's something that a person needs to think about. It should be up to the individual, not the state, to choose if they want to donate an organ.

    It is nice you want to save lives but this is not right way.
    And it will be their choice. We're going to send a leaflet to every household in the country explaining their choice. The people who I might sympathize with a bit (i.e. religious grounds) are obviously going to care enough to opt out and they will have their entire lifetime to do so.

    Tell me what damage this will do so we can compare it with the benefits objectively and fairly. Because I say this will likely save thousands of people's lives and save the eyesight of people who'd otherwise go blind - year upon year people who would have otherwise have suffered due to the apathy of their countrymen will instead live and prosper and human organs that would otherwise have been turned to ash will instead live on in others. The potential downside? Someone who might have opted out but didn't really care that much might forget to. I can go up that person's corpse and tell that person 'tough luck'. Could I go up to someone half-blind and tell them how little I value their ability to see and say the same? No, I could not. Do you honestly disagree?




    Spoiler:
    Show


    Me when I'm genuinely trying to convince someone sounds different to me when I'm just bored and browsing TSR.

    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nirvana1989-1994)
    I never called you that. I was going on about you saying it to me. Why on earth would I call you that?

    I don't have a 'thin skin'. I just abhor rudeness, especially when it isn't warranted.
    I didn't call you a leftie? You're in the Conservatives lol. My whole point was that it wasn't just 'lefties' that are of that disposition.

    I was kidding around - I abhor suffering and death, especially when it isn't warranted so I guess we're even.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    We'll take a look at it. :yy:
    IIRC there was one proposed that failed last term or the term before.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I didn't call you a leftie? You're in the Conservatives lol. My whole point was that it wasn't just 'lefties' that are of that disposition.

    I was kidding around - I abhor suffering and death, especially when it isn't warranted so I guess we're even.
    If you say so.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Nineteen Eighty-Four was meant to be a warning Ray, not an instruction manual.

    People have the right to be apathetic about whatever they choose: if people choose to abstain from voting all together, for example, I respect that, if people don't want to donate organs then that should also be respected.

    How dare you think that the state knows better about morality than the individuals who's organs are being harvested?

    Don't give me the whole "it's an opt in" BS; people just go for the default option because people are lazy, this is a veiled attempt at state tyranny, basically this:

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You truly are a fan of the 'ol hyperbole but the more you use it the less impactful it is. I guess the Welsh Assembly are Orwellian fascists then? I 100% agree that "if people don't want to donate organs then that should also be respected" - that's why they can choose to opt out and we're making it easy for them to do so. Nothing here is forced - nothing here is oppressive. I'd prefer the 'lazy' people picked the default option that did some good rather than did nothing at all. You say you're unhappy that people will just pick the default option - well guess what, the default option is a fantastic and honourable thing to do.

    And how dare I? Politics is all about making 'moral' judgements about what is right for the nation. Look at my post (73) to coffeegeek - I think it puts into perspective the judgement call you're making here.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    You have said that you would implement (or at least consider) ideas from Nigel's first comment, and so it is definitely an aye from me (well, if you change the bill on the second reading).
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    You truly are a fan of the 'ol hyperbole but the more you use it the less impactful it is. I guess the Welsh Assembly are Orwellian fascists then? I 100% agree that "if people don't want to donate organs then that should also be respected" - that's why they can choose to opt out and we're making it easy for them to do so. Nothing here is forced - nothing here is oppressive. I'd prefer the 'lazy' people picked the default option that did some good rather than did nothing at all. You say you're unhappy that people will just pick the default option - well guess what, the default option is a fantastic and honourable thing to do.

    And how dare I? Politics is all about making 'moral' judgements about what is right for the nation. Look at my post (73) to coffeegeek - I think it puts into perspective the judgement call you're making here.
    Personally I agree with you, however I know a vast number disagree and wouldn't like to made to opt out; what if, for example, an elderly Jehovah's Witness didn't know how to opt out and then ended up getting their organs harvested (very realistic possibility considering the background of many JWs).

    There's nothing wrong with the current opt in system, it allows Good Samaritans to do a good deed, and those that don't like the idea to keep to themselves, rather than have them make a fuss, I know a lot of older people hate making a fuss and relying on the state as it makes them feel shameful.

    It honestly has echoes of Aph's suggestions of forced cremation, I'm sorry mate but I was being deadly serious when I said I thought this was a PMB written by him, I'm not supporting this. Period.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    And it will be their choice. We're going to send a leaflet to every household in the country explaining their choice. The people who I might sympathize with a bit (i.e. religious grounds) are obviously going to care enough to opt out and they will have their entire lifetime to do so.
    I don't agree with automatically adding to a register without their permission. Even though they can opt out afterwards, it shows that little thought has gone into something so important and personal. They were just added to a list and given a government leaflet telling them they can opt out if they wish. I would rather they were given a government leaflet encouraging them to donate an organ rather than telling them that they have been added to a list and you can opt out if you want... For things such as organ donation I don't think opt-out is the right way.

    I think schools would be a good place to start it. Teaching students about the importance of donating but also the importance of choice. This should see an increase in donations wouldn't it?

    Tell me what damage this will do so we can compare it with the benefits objectively and fairly. Because I say this will likely save thousands of people's lives and save the eyesight of people who'd otherwise go blind - year upon year people who would have otherwise have suffered due to the apathy of their countrymen will instead live and prosper and human organs that would otherwise have been turned to ash will instead live on in others. The potential downside? Someone who might have opted out but didn't really care that much might forget to. I can go up that person's corpse and tell that person 'tough luck'. Could I go up to someone half-blind and tell them how little I value their ability to see and say the same? No, I could not. Do you honestly disagree?




    Spoiler:
    Show


    Me when I'm genuinely trying to convince someone sounds different to me when I'm just bored and browsing TSR.

    Personally I do not agree with this. People should always think through important decisions, this is one of them.

    I know you want to save lives but I don't like the way how this is being done. I think organ donations should always be opt in. And their name should be added onto the list with their permission and not automatically added by the state...
 
 
 
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.