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

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Living somewhere where organ donation is now opt-out and nobody cares, I can't help but find such ideological opposition a bit bizarre.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Ah again.

    Same answer.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LifeIsFine)
    As for your second paragraph, I understand what you are saying.
    But for your first, why wouldn't people put themselves on the register if they really wanted to save lives? Why would "motivation" stop someone if they actually wanted to? If they've neither said yes or no, assuming it's automatically a yes and taking an organ
    from someone is not right in any way.

    While I seem quite defensive I could be swayed, just not by the arguments currently presented.
    Mostly because they can't be bothered to opt in and they'll just go along with the status quo. People simply don't think about adding themselves to the register and even if they did, it would be right at the bottom of their priorities. We wouldn't be assuming it is a yes because at 16, people will almost be provided with a clear choice of whether they want to stay on the register or not.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Mostly because they can't be bothered to opt in and they'll just go along with the status quo. People simply don't think about adding themselves to the register and even if they did, it would be right at the bottom of their priorities. We wouldn't be assuming it is a yes because at 16, people will almost be provided with a clear choice of whether they want to stay on the register or not.
    As for the bold, does that really sound like someone wanting to give away an organ in order to save a life?
    But due to the bill and you saying there would be a clear choice at 16, just how simple would the opt out procedure be?
    I mean, if people cant be bothered to opt in, why would they be bothered to opt out?(and then go through the process of having an organ involuntarily removed)
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    aye
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LifeIsFine)
    As for the bold, does that really sound like someone wanting to give away an organ in order to save a life?
    But due to the bill and you saying there would be a clear choice at 16, just how simple would the opt out procedure be?
    I mean, if people cant be bothered to opt in, why would they be bothered to opt out?(and then go through the process of having an organ involuntarily removed)
    I think it is worth comparing this issue to public petitions. There are probably at least 10 petitions a week put up on the Government website that someone feels strongly about. However, the vast majority of people don't sign it because they simply don't have time to do so. The same is the case for organ donations. People do care about saving lives but they don't sign up for this very reason.

    Literally a 30 second phone call. It coukdn't be any simpler.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    I think it is worth comparing this issue to public petitions. There are probably at least 10 petitions a week put up on the Government website that someone feels strongly about. However, the vast majority of people don't sign it because they simply don't have time to do so. The same is the case for organ donations. People do care about saving lives but they don't sign up for this very reason.

    Literally a 30 second phone call. It coukdn't be any simpler.
    I feel the public petition analogy is one with flaws: most people do not know nor care about public petitions, and the effect of most likely wont be as prevalent as an organ being taken out.
    However, you have said it would be a 30 second phone call to opt out. This has swayed me in all honesty; if it truly would be that simple, with all the information sent to the 16 year olds, I would have no reason not to vote Could I ask you what one would currently need to do to opt in?
    Spoiler:
    Show

    I hope my language wasn't too harsh during my questioning; I did enjoy this debate, and your attitude is much deserving of your congeniality award.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Okay how do I opt out?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    As per the original reading, nay.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LifeIsFine)
    So essentially, rather than having people not have an organ taking from their bodies by default (which is most likely what they would want given the fact that if they really did want to this bill wouldn't exist), you would have people have their organ taken from them by default? (which,for the previous reason is likely not to be what people would want)?
    While they are obviously quite on the same level, would be for a revival of the national service?
    These people are dead. They are incapable of owning anything - arguing that this is the state taking anything is naive sentimentalism. Furthermore, you don't 'own' your own body even while alive.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    These people are dead. They are incapable of owning anything - arguing that this is the state taking anything is naive sentimentalism. Furthermore, you don't 'own' your own body even while alive.
    If all the organ donations would just concern dead people then I have no reason to debate your statement. I'm actually not quite sure so could you clarify? As for your last sentence, who does? The state?
    The conversation I had with quamquam had convinced me to vote aye on this bill, am just interested in your thinking
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I understand and appreciate what the Government are trying to achieve with this bill, but I don't see this as the way to go about it. It's a no from me.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LifeIsFine)
    If all the organ donations would just concern dead people then I have no reason to debate your statement. I'm actually not quite sure so could you clarify? As for your last sentence, who does? The state?
    The conversation I had with quamquam had convinced me to vote aye on this bill, am just interested in your thinking
    This Bill doesn't relate to living people's organs. Nobody owns a living human body - it is not property.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    This Bill doesn't relate to living people's organs. Nobody owns a living human body - it is not property.
    I see, I was not aware of your first sentence previously, and I can only agree with your second.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    This Bill doesn't relate to living people's organs. Nobody owns a living human body - it is not property.
    Well, as established in the case of R v Kelly and Lindsay [1998], body parts can be regarded as personal property. In the case mentioned, both defendants were convicted of stealing body parts. Yes. You read that correctly.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wilhuff Tarkin)
    Well, as established in the case of R v Kelly and Lindsay [1998], body parts can be regarded as personal property. In the case mentioned, both defendants were convicted of stealing body parts. Yes. You read that correctly.
    I don't dispute that. A living body is incapable of being property.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wilhuff Tarkin)
    Well, as established in the case of R v Kelly and Lindsay [1998], body parts can be regarded as personal property. In the case mentioned, both defendants were convicted of stealing body parts. Yes. You read that correctly.
    It hardly matters whether a person's various constituent parts are their property after their death. They can, after all, opt-out - as long as we maintain that provision this doesn't infringe on people's 'self-ownership'.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yaboi)
    Okay how do I opt out?
    ^^^
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yaboi)
    Okay how do I opt out?
    (Original post by Yaboi)
    ^^^
    In Wales, where this policy is already saving lives, it is done online or over the phone - and you can reverse that decision at any time. We would seek to emulate this across the UK.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Nay. And the more I hear about this the more I support the privatisation of healthcare.
 
 
 
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: February 9, 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.