Daid Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 How can there be life after death? The phrase it's self doesn't even make sense!!/QUOTE] Waste of time being a donor then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 No i'm not saying that. Are people saying that; again for arguments sake, I should leave my body parts for donation because they think it's the right and selfless thing to do? Am I not entitled even for selfish reasons to keep me all together in my body? I can't speak for others, but as I've said from the start, yes you are entitled Are people willing to accept that family members that have died without giving the opportunity of life are selfish. Yes I don't consider my parents selfish for having the gaul to be cremated taking everything with them. It all depends on why a person isn't an organ donor. If it's just because they never made the effort to register, or if they've simply never even thought about it then it's not selfish. Ignorant or lazy (with regards to the matter at hand) perhaps but not selfish. If somebody has thought about it and decided they don't want anyone else to receive any of their organs, that they want to go to the grave taking all their organs with them, for no other reason, then that by definition is selfish. I came into this world with what I have inside me now. They've served me well so I might just take them with me, no pleasure no profit....lacking consideration for other people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted July 4, 2013 Author Share Posted July 4, 2013 How can there be life after death? The phrase it's self doesn't even make sense!!/QUOTE] Waste of time being a donor then. Ha Ha!! I think you've totally missed the point.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 Rootsbooster - you cannot have read the whole thread - it is littered with talk of 'selfishness' and similar rhetoric. It becomes quite clear that people are linking the two issues. Because someone does not agree with the state presumption of consent does not means that they do not wish to donate their organs. For many it is the principle that is the issue here. Some authorities are already saying that this could lead to less organs being available as people opt out because they resent the legislation. The argument that people who opt out should then not be given an organ if they need it is irrelevant. I gave body parts for many, many years and not once did I think that I was doing it so that if I needed some blood or plasma myself it would stand me in good stead. Like many other donors, I gave for altruistic reasons, nothing more, nothing less and in my view that is what should happen with organ donation. Once again, can you show a post which suggests people seem to be of the opinion that folk who don't agree with the new legislation also do not want to donate their body parts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daid Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 Ha Ha!! I think you've totally missed the point.... Nah I knew what you meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted July 4, 2013 Author Share Posted July 4, 2013 Nah I knew what you meant. So, it's a waste of time not donating then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 Sprinkle a liberal amount of budget cuts, greed and unacountability since then, and... Neither the Gvt nor the relevant public/semi-public bodies can be trusted with an automatic presumption, is the way I see it. What next? Automatic presumption of voting choice for absentee voters? I don't think the government can be trusted with ANYTHING but the government is what we have. Corruption and otherwise unfair/immoral dealings will always go on but if just one more person is saved per year without harm coming to anyone else then it (automatic/deemed consent) is worth it. We can complain/campaign/investigate/lobby against such things as organs going to people who we might think shouldn't deserve them but in the mean time... ...people are still dying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daid Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 So, it's a waste of time not donating then? I'm indifferent, they, as I said earlier can take what they need if they get consent from family. ---------- Post added 04-07-2013 at 13:51 ---------- It all depends on why a person isn't an organ donor. No it doesn't depend on anything at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 RootsBooster, you make a strong, and very valid, argument I respectfully disagree with it, nevertheless. On the basis that the further excesses which I can readily envisage happening on the back of this 'automatic presumption', both directly related to the subject-matter of organs and the medical field at large, and indirectly as paving the way for still further legislative encroachment unto our lives, are not worth saving just one more person per year. Not when millions died so we could all enjoy the luxury of making such a choice of our own free will, rather than be coerced by law into making it (...for now). Since this issue seems to be gathering a bit of pace in the thread, then, for the sake of clarity, I am not opposed to the principle of organ donation in the least, and have the exact same sentiment for any other 'charitable' topic/issue: my choice to make (as a personal freedom), not anyone else's to "presume unless I say different" (which constitutes a small encroachment of my personal freedom, yet another in a long and seemingly endless litany of same). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 No it doesn't depend on anything at all. Why not ? ---------- Post added 04-07-2013 at 14:34 ---------- RootsBooster, you make a strong, and very valid, argument I respectfully disagree with it, nevertheless. On the basis that the further excesses which I can readily envisage happening on the back of this 'automatic presumption', both directly related to the subject-matter of organs and the medical field at large, and indirectly as paving the way for still further legislative encroachment unto our lives, are not worth saving just one more person per year. Not when millions died so we could all enjoy the luxury of making such a choice of our own free will, rather than be coerced by law into making it (...for now). Since this issue seems to be gathering a bit of pace in the thread, then, for the sake of clarity, I am not opposed to the principle of organ donation in the least, and have the exact same sentiment for any other 'charitable' topic/issue: my choice to make (as a personal freedom), not anyone else's to "presume unless I say different" (which constitutes a small encroachment of my personal freedom, yet another in a long and seemingly endless litany of same). You may have had a point, if it weren't for the bit I highlighted. Nobody's taking the choice away, it's still going to be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.