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

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Aye
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Do I find the concept difficult to think about? Certainly, I feel uncomfortable at the thought of the issue, and find it difficult to explain why, although it is less to do with losing my organs post my demise than it is to do with my ultimate demise.

    Because of this I feel I am slightly more neutral/unbiased on the matter than some, that it is an issue which I have thought about a lot when my mind has been in darker places. However upon thinking about it knowing I must make a choice when voting on this bill, I decided that I am in full support of this policy, and not just because it is Government policy, but because of the good it will do. People should be able to easily opt out no questions asked, and I would encourage any religious groups, and I am sure they will if this passes, to talk to their members, and to help their members to opt out if they believe they may struggle for what ever reason.

    Some of the criticism which have already been noted I am sure will surface in the second reading which will be a more complete, practical bill.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    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.
    Jehovah's Witness's do not account for 'a vast number' - I do not think that there's any evidence at all that a vast number of the population would disapprove of what we're proposing here. I suspect this policy, reccomended by healthcare officials, would prove popular. And the hypothetical scenario you propose is very, very easy to get around. We simply make the date of commencement relatively far into the future (12 months after Royal Assent perhaps) but allow individuals the ability to opt-out immediately so no elderly individual is at risk of dying before they can opt-out. Problem solved.

    Every person who dies or goes blind but could have been helped had a donor been available is a problem with the current system. I can't say I can generate the same compassion for those who 'don't want to make a fuss' and I struggle to image those swathes of people you seem to think exist who will be nmegatively affected by this in any way.

    Aph should take that as a compliment. I am disappointed that you are able to divert from your supposed beliefs to oppose removing mandatory life sentences but you can't to do something to help people. Understand clearly this - you are defending the rights of people to decide what happens to their corpse - something which we are not taking away. You are defending that unthreatened 'right' at the expense of of people's lives. If there was ever a place to stand on a principle - this is not that place.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    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?

    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...
    A campaign to encourage registration would help - but the effect would be much, much less than the effect of this bill.

    Your issue seems to be more with the role of the state than with the policy. Tell me, why is this so important a decision? And we're not taking away the ability to make the decision for those who actually think it is an important one to make - we're simply allowing the socially optimal position to be the default one.

    In a perfect world there'd be no need for a policy such as this and everyone would put lots of thought into every aspect of their lives and afterlives. Also, in a perfect world, people wouldn't die in cases where medical science could save them.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    A campaign to encourage registration would help - but the effect would be much, much less than the effect of this bill.

    Your issue seems to be more with the role of the state than with the policy. Tell me, why is this so important a decision? And we're not taking away the ability to make the decision for those who actually think it is an important one to make - we're simply allowing the socially optimal position to be the default one.

    In a perfect world there'd be no need for a policy such as this and everyone would put lots of thought into every aspect of their lives and afterlives. Also, in a perfect world, people wouldn't die in cases where medical science could save them.
    I think it's better we try something that encourages registration instead of this. As aforementioned, if we teach people from an early age that donating is both important and respected then there should be a large increase in donations. In fact, many campaigns have seen an increase in donation.

    Of course it's an important, personal decision to give away your organs. You have your family to consult with sometimes, you will need to think about if this is something you really want to do. Giving an organ to someone who needs it is not just important but personal, both think about the effects it could have on them, both respect each other in the process. I don't think it's right for people to be added on to a list automatically, then given a government leaflet telling them they can opt out if they wish. It just ruins it. People won't think through it and they will just say "oh ok I've been added on, that's fine". Organ donation is something for the individual to think about not the state. If the individual wants their name added then they themselves must add their name, not the state.

    Like I said, it's nice that you want to save thousands of lives. But I just disagree with the way how you want to do it.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    I think it's better we try something that encourages registration instead of this. As aforementioned, if we teach people from an early age that donating is both important and respected then there should be a large increase in donations. In fact, many campaigns have seen an increase in donation.

    Of course it's an important, personal decision to give away your organs. You have your family to consult with sometimes, you will need to think about if this is something you really want to do. Giving an organ to someone who needs it is not just important but personal, both think about the effects it could have on them, both respect each other in the process. I don't think it's right for people to be added on to a list automatically, then given a government leaflet telling them they can opt out if they wish. It just ruins it. People won't think through it and they will just say "oh ok I've been added on, that's fine". Organ donation is something for the individual to think about not the state. If the individual wants their name added then they themselves must add their name, not the state.

    Like I said, it's nice that you want to save thousands of lives. But I just disagree with the way how you want to do it.
    I agree we could see an increase doing it your way - but I assume you don't deny that the increase would be nowhere near as great. Also, as this is the MHoC we don't have the option to try something and replace it if it fails because we can't see the results.

    You say 'of course it's an important, personal decision' but that paragraph essentially just repeats this assertion. You talk about 'the effects it could have on them' so, in case there has been a misunderstanding, the donor list we're talking about is only post-mortem donation. I don't mean, and would never propose, automatically putting people on a list where they might be forced to donate a kidney (which I believe is the only human transplant conducted with a living donor) whilst still alive. I don't think that many people really care about their corneas after they die but I understand some really do and this small minority who feel strongly will be given ample time and opportunity to opt out.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I agree we could see an increase doing it your way - but I assume you don't deny that the increase would be nowhere near as great. Also, as this is the MHoC we don't have the option to try something and replace it if it fails because we can't see the results.
    I agree that the results probably won't be the same but I still don't agree with this way of doing it.

    You say 'of course it's an important, personal decision' but that paragraph essentially just repeats this assertion. You talk about 'the effects it could have on them' so, in case there has been a misunderstanding, the donor list we're talking about is only post-mortem donation. I don't mean, and would never propose, automatically putting people on a list where they might be forced to donate a kidney (which I believe is the only human transplant conducted with a living donor) whilst still alive. I don't think that many people really care about their corneas after they die but I understand some really do and this small minority who feel strongly will be given ample time and opportunity to opt out.
    I explained why it was important and personal in that paragraph. Organ donation is a personal and important thing and with this it ruins it. I am aware that this is a post-mortem donation but people would still think about it. Am I not right about this? Just because it's post-mortem doesn't mean that people shouldn't (or even wouldn't) think about it thoroughly.

    You say "ample time" for the small minority... does this mean that with this policy people can only opt out in a given time and then after that you can't opt out?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    I agree that the results probably won't be the same but I still don't agree with this way of doing it.

    I explained why it was important and personal in that paragraph. Organ donation is a personal and important thing and with this it ruins it. I am aware that this is a post-mortem donation but people would still think about it. Am I not right about this? Just because it's post-mortem doesn't mean that people shouldn't (or even wouldn't) think about it thoroughly.

    You say "ample time" for the small minority... does this mean that with this policy people can only opt out in a given time and then after that you can't opt out?
    Why does it it 'ruin it'? Nothing's getting 'ruined'. Why is it important to anyone that their inanimate remains don't go on to do some good - heck, to live on in a meaningful fashion? And if it is important to someone they can opt out. If it isn't important to them then it isn't important to them. The 'importance' of this decision is entirely subjective. There is no objective reason to value your skin after you're dead - that's why 70% of people are cremated.

    I said ample time in reference to Connor's point that someone who was going to opt out might die before they had the chance. I suggested that we push the commencement forwards 12 months so anyone who dies suddenly won't be included and people can opt out before they're automatically put on the register. Obviously you'll still be able to opt out afterwards - you'll have your entire lifetime to do so.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Why does it it 'ruin it'? Nothing's getting 'ruined'. Why is it important to anyone that their inanimate remains don't go on to do some good - heck, to live on in a meaningful fashion? And if it is important to someone they can opt out. If it isn't important to them then it isn't important to them. The 'importance' of this decision is entirely subjective. There is no objective reason to value your skin after you're dead - that's why 70% of people are cremated.
    I've just explained to you why it ruins it... If someone wants to give an organ to someone who needs it then let them add themselves onto the register, and not the state. It is an important and personal decision for an individual to think about. Just because they are dead doesn't remove the whole important, personal bit of it. For whatever reason a person doesn't want to donate, whether it be religious or not, it should be respected because it is their body after all. We shouldn't question or shame anybody that doesn't put their body to do some good after they are dead - it's simply disrespectful.

    If it is important to someone, then they just don't sign up. And if it is, then sign up. It's not for the state to decide for everyone. I just do not agree with the way this is being carried out and I don't think other ways are being tried properly.

    I'm quite tired of repeating myself so I will watch some YouTube.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    I've just explained to you why it ruins it... If someone wants to give an organ to someone who needs it then let them add themselves onto the register, and not the state. It is an important and personal decision for an individual to think about. Just because they are dead doesn't remove the whole important, personal bit of it. For whatever reason a person doesn't want to donate, whether it be religious or not, it should be respected because it is their body after all. We shouldn't question or shame anybody that doesn't put their body to do some good after they are dead - it's simply disrespectful.

    If it is important to someone, then they just don't sign up. And if it is, then sign up. It's not for the state to decide for everyone. I just do not agree with the way this is being carried out and I don't think other ways are being tried properly.

    I'm quite tired of repeating myself so I will watch some YouTube.
    I'm afraid you are indeed repeating yourself but you are not explaining why anything is being 'ruined'.

    Let me break it down.

    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    I've just explained to you why it ruins it... If someone wants to give an organ to someone who needs it then let them add themselves onto the register, and not the state.
    Why is this better than: 'if someone doesn't want to help someone after they're dead, let them remove themselves from the register'? It isn't better - morally or socially. It's just you stating how you think things should be - without justifying it.

    It is an important and personal decision for an individual to think about.
    This is you repeating the statement you're supposed to be defending. I counterargued that it was only an important decision to some people (e.g. Jehova's witnesses) not to all people (as implied by 70% of people getting cremated and not caring much about their physical body post-death). The minority to which it is an important decision are free to make that decision.

    Just because they are dead doesn't remove the whole important, personal bit of it.
    It clearly changes things. Asking a living person to donate a kidney is not comparable to a dead person donating one. The former has serious health consequences to the donor, the latter has no consequences whatsoever (except helping someone in need of course).

    For whatever reason a person doesn't want to donate, whether it be religious or not, it should be respected because it is their body after all.
    It will be respected. Any person who opts out, not matter the reason, will have that choice respected. All we're saying is that for those without a preference it's better that people are helped.

    We shouldn't question or shame anybody that doesn't put their body to do some good after they are dead - it's simply disrespectful.
    I don't intend for those opting out to be questioned, nor will their details be public so there's no questioning or shaming involved.

    If it is important to someone, then they just don't sign up. And if it is, then sign up. It's not for the state to decide for everyone. I just do not agree with the way this is being carried out and I don't think other ways are being tried properly.

    I'm quite tired of repeating myself so I will watch some YouTube.
    This is again just you saying how you think things should be, without saying why it's a better way.

    I hope you see how you have not explained how anything is being 'ruined'. All you've made are a series of assertions like 'it's a personal decision' but statements such as that don't act as counters because this legislation doesn't take away the ability to choose.

    We both know who this bill helps. I humbly ask you to question who it hurts. And once you have in your mind the people this bill helps and the people this bill hurts I ask you to, objectively, weigh the pros and cons. I would argue that no one will be negatively affected by this bill passing - no one will regret it's passage - no one will feel any worse off. Simulataneously I would suggest that many people would enjoy huge positive benefit. And even if only one person doesn't go blind as a result then it will have been worth it.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    You have not, as an example of an individual left behind, there is no allowance in this bill for a mentally disabled individual to have a decision made on their behalf by a family member, or a carer.
    Not read the whole thread, but wanted to quickly respond to this - there are mechanisms already in place which permit this (see e.g. powers of attorney), hence not needing an express one within this Bill.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Not read the whole thread, but wanted to quickly respond to this - there are mechanisms already in place which permit this (see e.g. powers of attorney), hence not needing an express one within this Bill.
    An individual acting with power of attorney is restricted in the decision that can be made about medical care, for example, a decision cannot be made to not take medication prescribed by a healthcare professional. There would need to be no possibility of compulsory organ donation being seen on a similar level to taking prescribed medication, if the family's wishes were to be respected. The second issue is the time, as power of attorney is not automatic, the process of applying by filling in paperwork leaves a small time window where the individual may die, if power of attorney has not been granted before the individual dies, the family may not be able to act on the individual's behalf.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Nay, and Nigel has provided a very good argument that is difficult to make significant addition to.
    Opt out should never be the default action, whether it is for something very serious or mundane. If someone is not motivated enough to opt out then who are we to take invasive action that they have not explicitly agreed to? If there is any doubt at all as to the wishes of the deceased - which an opt out system creates - the safe route of non-action should be taken. That way you cannot go wrong.

    Just because someone has died does not mean they should potentially lose the right as to what happens to their very own body.

    Would the government personally ensure that every household successfully receives their leaflet? By recorded delivery perhaps? Could it be confused for junk mail? How will the next generation know they will be involuntarily harvested after death? Are we just going to rely on the parents for that one or will they be appropriately reminded at every opportunity by health workers?
    I just think there are better ways to increase voluntary donation, and they should be explored first.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChargingStag)
    Nay, and Nigel has provided a very good argument that is difficult to make significant addition to.
    Opt out should never be the default action, whether it is for something very serious or mundane. If someone is not motivated enough to opt out then who are we to take invasive action that they have not explicitly agreed to? If there is any doubt at all as to the wishes of the deceased - which an opt out system creates - the safe route of non-action should be taken. That way you cannot go wrong.

    Just because someone has died does not mean they should potentially lose the right as to what happens to their very own body.

    Would the government personally ensure that every household successfully receives their leaflet? By recorded delivery perhaps? Could it be confused for junk mail? How will the next generation know they will be involuntarily harvested after death? Are we just going to rely on the parents for that one or will they be appropriately reminded at every opportunity by health workers?
    I just think there are better ways to increase voluntary donation, and they should be explored first.
    The government is considering notifying everyone when they come of a certain age - perhaps conflate it with the national insurance notification.

    And to suggest that some people would remain ignorant cos a letter got lost in the post is like saying some people might not have noticed the EU referendum. It's not a serious concern in the face of what we're trying to achieve here.
    • Offline

      18
      Aye, as long as the opt-out process is hassle and guilt-trip free then there is no issue.
      • Political Ambassador
      Online

      21
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by notneb)
      Aye, as long as the opt-out process is hassle and guilt-trip free then there is no issue.
      I expect it would be modeled after opting out of affiliation contributions with the unions

      Posted from TSR Mobile
      • Aston Villa FC Supporter
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      Abstain
      • Community Assistant
      • Political Ambassador
      • Welcome Squad
      Offline

      20
      ReputationRep:
      Aye
      Offline

      21
      ReputationRep:
      Nay nay nay!

      You can't force the public into organ donations, this will cause some controversy. Let people decide if they want to opt in or not.



      Posted from OtherWorld
      Offline

      20
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by ChargingStag)
      Nay, and Nigel has provided a very good argument that is difficult to make significant addition to.
      Opt out should never be the default action, whether it is for something very serious or mundane. If someone is not motivated enough to opt out then who are we to take invasive action that they have not explicitly agreed to? If there is any doubt at all as to the wishes of the deceased - which an opt out system creates - the safe route of non-action should be taken. That way you cannot go wrong.

      Just because someone has died does not mean they should potentially lose the right as to what happens to their very own body.

      Would the government personally ensure that every household successfully receives their leaflet? By recorded delivery perhaps? Could it be confused for junk mail? How will the next generation know they will be involuntarily harvested after death? Are we just going to rely on the parents for that one or will they be appropriately reminded at every opportunity by health workers?
      I just think there are better ways to increase voluntary donation, and they should be explored first.
      If that is the case, then why isn't education an opt-in system? You said never, so we should assume everyone is to be homeschooled. How about saving someone's life in an emergency? What if they didn't want to be saved in a certain way? You can't go wrong with non-action, right? Should taxes, VAT included, only be collected afterwards? What if I prefer going to jail?

      It's interesting you said dead people had rights. What rights do they have? Do they have the right to education? Benefits? Can a corpes apply for social housing? Can dead bodies vote? Do they own properties? It's clear that dead people don't have the same rights as living people do.
     
     
     
    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
  1. 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.

  2. Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  3. 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.

  4. 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.