L00b Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 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.I think you may have misunderstood my point about 'choice': my point is not that the choice is taken away (it is not, and I understand that well), but that the requirement to make that choice is forced upon everyone. I see it as a first step towards taking that choice away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earthly Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 I wish the government would just bite the bullet and implement this in England; there are so many gravely ill people languishing on organ donor waiting lists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 the requirement to make that choice is forced upon everyone. They're not required to make a choice. People can be as apathetic as they are now about organ donation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 They're not required to make a choice.True, anyone is perfectly entitled to ignore the issue entirely, and be harvested post-mortem at will for whoever's further purposes. Even for making Soylent Green People can be as apathetic as they are now about organ donation.They certainly can, and were this proposal to come in, I would duly expect the vast majority to be. For shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 Even for making Soylent Green I've always had my suspicions about Spam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daven Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 Ask the poor parents of children whose body parts were removed at Alder Hey Hospital and others how they feel about this. See here, here and here. Bereavement can be devastating for the family and friends of the deceased and the grief can be exacerbated greatly by the mutilation of the body. Many people dislike even the thought of a post mortem to determine the cause of death. The removal of donated organs is done with far more care and respect than the average PM . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 I think you may have misunderstood my point about 'choice': my point is not that the choice is taken away (it is not, and I understand that well), but that the requirement to make that choice is forced upon everyone. Nobody is being forced to make a choice I see it as a first step towards taking that choice away. How so? ---------- Post added 04-07-2013 at 21:24 ---------- I am with Daid in that I don't particularly care if I help someone after I am dead, but this also means I don't particularly care what happens to me after I am dead, so I might as well donate. A little food for thought... There's a 3 car pile up; -Car 1 was being driven by Bill, who died from a broken neck. In the passenger seat was his son Jason, who has suffered irreparable organ (take your pick which one) trauma/damage. His only hope for survival is an immediate transplant from a suitable donor. Bill was a perfect match/candidate and his body is in the same hospital and could easily save Jason's life. Bill has always refused to even consider donating organs after death, as a result of this Jason dies along with his father. -Car 2 was being driven by Gary, who died from severe head injuries. In the passenger seat was his brother Tony, who has suffered irreparable organ (take your pick which one) trauma/damage. His only hope for survival is an immediate transplant from a suitable donor. Gary was a perfect match/candidate and his body is in the same hospital and could easily save Tony's life. Gary has always said it doesn't matter what happens to his body after his death, anyone can take what they want. He never bothered registering as an organ donor though and hospital staff are unable to locate any family members. As a result of this Tony dies along with his brother. -Car 3 was being driven by Sarah, who died from severe lung and heart injuries. In the passenger seat was her mother Julia, who has suffered irreparable organ (take your pick which one) trauma/damage. Her only hope for survival is an immediate transplant from a suitable donor. Sarah was a perfect match/candidate and her body is in the same hospital and could easily save Julia's life. Sarah registered to be an organ donor 4 years ago and even carries the donor card. As a result of this Julia survives and eventually makes a full recovery, thanks to her daughter. If we used a system of automatic/deemed consent, Tony could have also survived. This is the upside of automatic/deemed consent, I haven't heard any downside that stands up past the mildest scrutiny. Auto98uk (and others), after reading the above, especially Gary and Tony's case, do you still feel that you don't particularly care if you help someone after you are dead, even if it's a family member? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 I think you missed my point - I think you should be automatically opted in because I don't particularly care what happens after I am dead. Okay, but my question to you still remains Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daid Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 Why not Because they've made a choice and it's of no concern to anyone at all what their choice is or why they made it. There is no right or wrong here there's only a belief from some that in death it's our duty to give life to someone else and I don't necessarily see that it is. Doubtless they'll be more takers with this new system should it ever take off and that's good, it may even kickstart a flurry of people registering regardless, also good. For those that don't, i'm fine with it and I won't label them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 Are people willing to accept that family members that have died without giving the opportunity of life are selfish. 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. No it doesn't depend on anything at all. Why not ? Because they've made a choice and it's of no concern to anyone at all what their choice is or why they made it. There is no right or wrong here there's only a belief from some that in death it's our duty to give life to someone else and I don't necessarily see that it is. You appear to have confused yourself somewhat. As you can see, we were discussing how a decision or lack of decision can be described as selfish. You're trying to turn it into an argument about duty and right & wrong. Your response doesn't change the fact that consciously deciding to withhold your organs after death for no other reason than preference meets the definition of selfish. I'm not arguing what's right or wrong at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.