This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Can someone give feedback on my lnat practice essay on the sale of organs.?
- Donate to kidney for life on kidney day
- I just ruined my life
- 40 UCAS points - Adult.
- EPQ- bit off more than I can chew!! - effect on technology on child development
- Ketone reduction with NaBH4 help
- Blood donation
- Do Russel groups matter ?
- Ecology or Zoology
- Cooking and Budgeting at University. Best Advice
- Uni prep
- predicted biology gcse questions
- judged for wanting to wait till marriage (F18)
- Irish language at 'crisis point'- Journal.ie
- DWP Work coach.
- Tesco Verification on Colleague App
- Best Staregy to Keep Up With Homework
- Could you mark my GCSE article out of 40 please
- MSc Management and Information Systems: Change and Development
- Klayden's Organic Chemistry
Opt-out organ donor system: Your views
The Prime Minister has called for a national debate about whether Britain should move towards a new system of organ donation in which everyone is a potential donor unless they opt-out. What do you think?
Writing in The Sunday Telegraph, Mr Brown said he supports the proposal to allow hospitals to remove organs from anyone when they die, unless they explicitly opt out of the scheme beforehand, or their families object.
There are currently more than 8,000 people on the organ transplant list in the UK and advisers believe the new proposals could double the number of organs available and save thousands of lives.
However, several patients groups are against this type of system, arguing that it is not up to the state to decide what becomes of people's bodies when they die.
Would you agree with a system of "presumed consent"? Do you carry an organ donor card? Have you ever received an organ transplant?
Read the full story (on the BBC website)
Click here if you have any other story ideas (on the BBC website)
Writing in The Sunday Telegraph, Mr Brown said he supports the proposal to allow hospitals to remove organs from anyone when they die, unless they explicitly opt out of the scheme beforehand, or their families object.
There are currently more than 8,000 people on the organ transplant list in the UK and advisers believe the new proposals could double the number of organs available and save thousands of lives.
However, several patients groups are against this type of system, arguing that it is not up to the state to decide what becomes of people's bodies when they die.
Would you agree with a system of "presumed consent"? Do you carry an organ donor card? Have you ever received an organ transplant?
Read the full story (on the BBC website)
Click here if you have any other story ideas (on the BBC website)
Scroll to see replies
There was a thread about this a few months back, wasn't there?
Anyway, to be on topic, I'm against it. For something as serious as organ donation, people should not have to 'opt out'.
They need to do more to promote organ donation, not enforce it. I can honestly say that the only time I've seen advertising for organ donation was when I applied for my provisional license and my Boots advantage card.
Anyway, to be on topic, I'm against it. For something as serious as organ donation, people should not have to 'opt out'.
They need to do more to promote organ donation, not enforce it. I can honestly say that the only time I've seen advertising for organ donation was when I applied for my provisional license and my Boots advantage card.
I'm definitely for the opt-out system.
I would carry a donor card but I just haven't got around to filling in all the forms. The default decision should be the one which is beneficial for society. Then if you have strong enough views in the other direction you can still choose not to contribute.
I would carry a donor card but I just haven't got around to filling in all the forms. The default decision should be the one which is beneficial for society. Then if you have strong enough views in the other direction you can still choose not to contribute.
alex_hk90
I'm definitely for the opt-out system.
I would carry a donor card but I just haven't got around to filling in all the forms. The default decision should be the one which is beneficial for society. Then if you have strong enough views in the other direction you can still choose not to contribute.
I would carry a donor card but I just haven't got around to filling in all the forms. The default decision should be the one which is beneficial for society. Then if you have strong enough views in the other direction you can still choose not to contribute.
Doesn't that just make you a lazy bastard?
I've only ever been asked once whether I want a donor card. They were quite sympathetic when I said "erm... no".
lincs_b
I have a donor card and have quite strong views but for the sake of people like alex who either haven't gotten round to it or have never considered it I think that the opt-out idea is a good one.
Not getting round to it is a sign of laziness. The forms take minutes to fill out, if that. If it was an application for a bursary Alex would be quicker about it, yes? So evidently he can't care that much; it sounds as if he wants to inconvenience people like me for the sake of not having to fill in a form. As for not considering it: this is the government's fault for not advertising it enough.
As much as I couldn't care less about this topic, what you're talking about is a completely separate issue.
This is an abhorrent idea, to be brutally honest.
Look at it like this. My organs belong to me, they are my property. I have the right to do with them as I wish. This proposal basically says that by default my organs belong to the state unless I ask for them back. Sound right to anyone? Perhaps charities should start setting up direct debits that you have to opt out of in order to avoid giving them your money?
No, my property is mine by default and I should have to actively give it to someone else. There should be no legislation transferring ownership of any of my property to someone else by default.
Another point is the intention. The aim is to double the number of donors. Let's examine this for a moment. How will this increase happen? It won't be through people pro-actively choosing to give their organs away. It will be through people not feeling strongly enough about it to opt out. Or, potentially, not getting round to it in time or not understanding that they have to opt out. In short, this scheme will increase the number of donors by ensuring that many people who do not actually want to give their organs away end up doing so through various reasons. IIRC there is a lot of fuss about companies signing people up to schemes that they have to opt out of in order to avoid paying for and this is worse.
And what about mistakes? At the moment the default is that an organ belongs to the owner and cannot be harvested. If this is passed the mistakes will be to assume that the organ is donated and people will be having their organs stolen by the state.
In short then, the problems are:
1) The transfer of my property to someone else by default
2) The cynical exploitation being used by this proposal to get more donors
3) The likely increase in theft of organs through ineptitude and mistakes
Look at it like this. My organs belong to me, they are my property. I have the right to do with them as I wish. This proposal basically says that by default my organs belong to the state unless I ask for them back. Sound right to anyone? Perhaps charities should start setting up direct debits that you have to opt out of in order to avoid giving them your money?
No, my property is mine by default and I should have to actively give it to someone else. There should be no legislation transferring ownership of any of my property to someone else by default.
Another point is the intention. The aim is to double the number of donors. Let's examine this for a moment. How will this increase happen? It won't be through people pro-actively choosing to give their organs away. It will be through people not feeling strongly enough about it to opt out. Or, potentially, not getting round to it in time or not understanding that they have to opt out. In short, this scheme will increase the number of donors by ensuring that many people who do not actually want to give their organs away end up doing so through various reasons. IIRC there is a lot of fuss about companies signing people up to schemes that they have to opt out of in order to avoid paying for and this is worse.
And what about mistakes? At the moment the default is that an organ belongs to the owner and cannot be harvested. If this is passed the mistakes will be to assume that the organ is donated and people will be having their organs stolen by the state.
In short then, the problems are:
1) The transfer of my property to someone else by default
2) The cynical exploitation being used by this proposal to get more donors
3) The likely increase in theft of organs through ineptitude and mistakes
I'm for it. I can appreciate why it makes people uncomfortable, but when all is said and done there are so many people who die uneccessarily because there aren't any organs for them. As long as we make people aware of the fact that they can opt-out if they so wish, I think it's a good idea.
When I'm dead, I don't care at all what happens to me, because it won't be 'me' anymore. I'm totally for an opt-out system. I think if people care strongly enough they can simply fill in a form and it's sorted. Most people are lazy more than anything and making organ donation easier like this will help a lot of people.
I honestly can't think of any justifiable reason why anyone would want to opt out. It's not like you need your organs after you die, and in the meantime it could save someone else's life.
There's a fair bit of advertising for the organ donor's register if you do blood donations. That's a good way of doing it, methinks, because the kind of people who will donate their blood are the same kind of people who'll donate their organs.
There's a fair bit of advertising for the organ donor's register if you do blood donations. That's a good way of doing it, methinks, because the kind of people who will donate their blood are the same kind of people who'll donate their organs.
UniOfLife
This is an abhorrent idea, to be brutally honest.
Look at it like this. My organs belong to me, they are my property. I have the right to do with them as I wish. This proposal basically says that by default my organs belong to the state unless I ask for them back. Sound right to anyone? Perhaps charities should start setting up direct debits that you have to opt out of in order to avoid giving them your money?
No, my property is mine by default and I should have to actively give it to someone else. There should be no legislation transferring ownership of any of my property to someone else by default.
Another point is the intention. The aim is to double the number of donors. Let's examine this for a moment. How will this increase happen? It won't be through people pro-actively choosing to give their organs away. It will be through people not feeling strongly enough about it to opt out. Or, potentially, not getting round to it in time or not understanding that they have to opt out. In short, this scheme will increase the number of donors by ensuring that many people who do not actually want to give their organs away end up doing so through various reasons. IIRC there is a lot of fuss about companies signing people up to schemes that they have to opt out of in order to avoid paying for and this is worse.
And what about mistakes? At the moment the default is that an organ belongs to the owner and cannot be harvested. If this is passed the mistakes will be to assume that the organ is donated and people will be having their organs stolen by the state.
In short then, the problems are:
1) The transfer of my property to someone else by default
2) The cynical exploitation being used by this proposal to get more donors
3) The likely increase in theft of organs through ineptitude and mistakes
Look at it like this. My organs belong to me, they are my property. I have the right to do with them as I wish. This proposal basically says that by default my organs belong to the state unless I ask for them back. Sound right to anyone? Perhaps charities should start setting up direct debits that you have to opt out of in order to avoid giving them your money?
No, my property is mine by default and I should have to actively give it to someone else. There should be no legislation transferring ownership of any of my property to someone else by default.
Another point is the intention. The aim is to double the number of donors. Let's examine this for a moment. How will this increase happen? It won't be through people pro-actively choosing to give their organs away. It will be through people not feeling strongly enough about it to opt out. Or, potentially, not getting round to it in time or not understanding that they have to opt out. In short, this scheme will increase the number of donors by ensuring that many people who do not actually want to give their organs away end up doing so through various reasons. IIRC there is a lot of fuss about companies signing people up to schemes that they have to opt out of in order to avoid paying for and this is worse.
And what about mistakes? At the moment the default is that an organ belongs to the owner and cannot be harvested. If this is passed the mistakes will be to assume that the organ is donated and people will be having their organs stolen by the state.
In short then, the problems are:
1) The transfer of my property to someone else by default
2) The cynical exploitation being used by this proposal to get more donors
3) The likely increase in theft of organs through ineptitude and mistakes
It is not just a transfer of property and 'theft' for two reasons:
1) You are dead and do not need it in any way
2) It can and most likely will save someone's life at no cost to you!
I definitely think that there should be an opt out system and I agree that if you truly feel that strongly against it you can just opt out. I think in truth most people would not really mind, but are just too apathetic to become a donor, something I only did fairly recently as I guess it's just not something you really think about usually
~Ollie~
It is not just a transfer of property and 'theft' for two reasons:
1) You are dead and do not need it in any way
2) It can and most likely will save someone's life at no cost to you!
1) You are dead and do not need it in any way
2) It can and most likely will save someone's life at no cost to you!
1) The fact that the person is dead is irrelevant. Should the state be allowed to take my house when I die? I don't need it anymore.
2) Irrelevant. Giving money to charity can and most likely will save someone's life doesn't give anyone else the right to take my money against my will and give it to charity.
So yes, it is theft to transfer default ownership to the state.
UniOfLife
1) The fact that the person is dead is irrelevant. Should the state be allowed to take my house when I die? I don't need it anymore.
However, you could say that a house can be left to your descendents when you die, meaning that the state cannot take it away. However, you will not leave you organs to your descendents when you die, so the two situations aren't really analogous.
But 'ownership' implies some alternative use. The only alternative use of your organs once you have died is as some small comfort to your family and if they object then fair enough. It's ridiculous to draw a comparison between a house, which is obviously useful to anyone it is left to and so should be taken, and organs which would be infinitely more useful to someone on a donor list! it is pure and completely pointless selfishness to deny someone life through the sheer principle of not wanting to give something away, even though it will be of no use to you whatsoever once you are dead! would you object to the state using the rubbish you throw away as fuel in biofuel generators? of course the difference here is that there is significant emotional attachment for the family but that is why both they or you can opt out!
generalebriety
Doesn't that just make you a lazy bastard?
I've only ever been asked once whether I want a donor card. They were quite sympathetic when I said "erm... no".
I've only ever been asked once whether I want a donor card. They were quite sympathetic when I said "erm... no".
Not really, I'm just constantly quite busy; they are a lot of things I don't get around to doing. I don't think I've ever been given the forms, maybe if all I had to do was fill them in and send them off I'd do it.
generalebriety
Not getting round to it is a sign of laziness. The forms take minutes to fill out, if that. If it was an application for a bursary Alex would be quicker about it, yes?
It depends how much the bursary was for.
generalebriety
So evidently he can't care that much; it sounds as if he wants to inconvenience people like me for the sake of not having to fill in a form.
That's not the case at all, I believe that unless you are so strongly against donating your organs that you will take the time and effort to fill in the form to show that, it should be assumed that you are willing to do so. It would almost certainly increase the number of people on the organ donation list, which is surely a good thing for society.
Since I've spent so long answer these posts though, I'm now going to find and fill in the form.
If anyone else is interested you can do it here: http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/how_to_become_a_donor/how_to_become_a_donor.jsp
Hmm. The government's going to nationalise our bodies... fun.
I will definitely sign up to organ donation. Somehow I doubt (or at least hope) I'll have lived a life that will render my organs fairly useless by the time I die, but help yourself folks.
But I don't believe anyone should have to "opt-out" of something that really ought to be their choice to start with.
I will definitely sign up to organ donation. Somehow I doubt (or at least hope) I'll have lived a life that will render my organs fairly useless by the time I die, but help yourself folks.
But I don't believe anyone should have to "opt-out" of something that really ought to be their choice to start with.
I'm against it. Despite the obvious good intention, organ donation has to be a persons choice, in the same way that blood donation is a persons choice. A persons right to their own body is absolute, and whatever the intent, no-one should be able to change that. If this system was in place, i would opt out, not through not wanting to donate, but just because if i were to, i would do it through my own choice, and i fear many other people would do the same, which would surely have a large negative impact on organ donation itself.
Related discussions
- Can someone give feedback on my lnat practice essay on the sale of organs.?
- Donate to kidney for life on kidney day
- I just ruined my life
- 40 UCAS points - Adult.
- EPQ- bit off more than I can chew!! - effect on technology on child development
- Ketone reduction with NaBH4 help
- Blood donation
- Do Russel groups matter ?
- Ecology or Zoology
- Cooking and Budgeting at University. Best Advice
- Uni prep
- predicted biology gcse questions
- judged for wanting to wait till marriage (F18)
- Irish language at 'crisis point'- Journal.ie
- DWP Work coach.
- Tesco Verification on Colleague App
- Best Staregy to Keep Up With Homework
- Could you mark my GCSE article out of 40 please
- MSc Management and Information Systems: Change and Development
- Klayden's Organic Chemistry
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 months ago
Mums furious after photo firm offers to delete kids in wheelchairs from school picsLast reply 2 months ago
Poundland drafts in advisors amid discounter crisis
