Wales could soon have a system where everyone will be presumed to have consented to organ donation, unless they opt out. Some more details here.
I can understand not wanting your dead loved one to be cut up, but the fact is their body is not going to remain as it was, and it’s an entirely illogical feeling. When should we put these wishes of the relatives before the needs of those who need organs? Is it justified to put the relatives through emotional pain based on irrationality to improve someone else’s physical health? What about an “opt out” system at all? Is it wrong to presume consent?
The “Feelies” is a terrible way to run anything, especially organ donation. Religious leaders say the feelings of the deceased might get hurt if they don’t get a say in organ donation? Lets take this one single step further. If person A dies and person B needs their lungs to continue living but person A’s mom decides she can’t handle the thought of her precious baby girl getting all cut up and says no…Now we have person B dying and the process starts all over again.
Letting grieving family make this decision is a recipe for creating MORE sadness and grief not less.
I am an organ donor and I don’t agree with instituting an opt out system. I know it saves many lives, I don’t believe in a soul and my carcass will just rot anyway, still, taking my organs shouldn’t be the default position of the government.
A conscious decision to agree to donation makes it a gift, an opt out situation isn’t.
It saves lives whether you call it a gift or not. The basic problem is that a significant number of patients die because many people are so lazy - or so reluctant to think about this somewhat icky subject - that they can’t be bothered to check a box or fill out a form. I used to agree with your position for reasons of ownership of your own body, but laziness or apathy don’t deserve this kind of respect. Anyone who is determined not to be an organ donor could easily opt out. If the driving force here is inertia, you may as well use that inertia for good since it will save lives.
I think they are right. Organ Donation needs to be an “opt out” system And, on top of that, if you do opt out, it should mean a small surcharge to the drivers license fee- call it a “processing fee” and make it only $5.
I sympathize with ‘the greater good’ argument. If we were discussing mandatory voting or Fluoride in drinking water I would agree with you. But underneath the epidermis I prefer laziness and apathy to be the right of the individual over the needs of the state, even if that individual is dead.
It’s the needs of living individuals, not the needs of the state. Although arguably the state benefits too. And why is mandatory “greater good” stuff OK if it affects the living but not the dead? Living people might object to fluoride or mandatory voting (in fact I’m against it), but dead people derive no benefit from their organs. And of course if they believe for some reason that they do need their organs after they die, they can opt out. This only affects people who don’t really care one way or the other, and I think the polls show most people support organ donation. They just don’t bother to sign up, which is why we’re discussing this option.
‘Leave my dead body alone’ shouldn’t be a box you have to check at the DMV. The government should protect your person because that is all it is supposed to do, that should be the default. Why do soldiers in the united states and elsewhere risk so much to get back the corpses of their comrades? They’re just bodies, rotting.
Is this similar to the avatar debate here on this board? “I won’t need it when I’m gone, it doesn’t matter what happens to it, and it could help others, yet I don’t want anyone else to have it regardless.” That makes so much sense to me.
Opt out is how it should have always been.
You should start an opt out pig feed campaign. Pigs will eat anything, society gains by having fatter pigs, your body would make great feed. Make sure you check that box though if you don’t want to participate.
Not a problem. If it helped someone else after I’m dead and through with it, then bring it on. Because, you know, having the undue pressure of actually having to check a box is just not too much for me.
The government needs to protect your corpse more than it needs to save the living who will soon be dead without organs from the recently dead…You have interesting priorities.
Which of these sounds more like protecting a person to you: not making people check a box if they want their organs to rot or be destroyed when they die, or saving people’s lives through organ donation?
Loyalty to their group. There’s no legal requirement that they go to those lengths.
The government doesn’t have a duty to ensure you get a dead mans body parts.
And of course there is no law requiring a soldiers remains to be recovered, regardless, while of no use whatsoever many care a great deal about doing it anyway. It’s what the service and our country owes him. I don’t know what to say if you don’t think that’s so or don’t see the connection to our current topic. Cold arithmetic and logic may say you are right, and yet I don’t agree.
I haven’t said it does. I’ve said this would do a lot of good and that it’s not only not a violation of anyone’s rights, it’s a minimal inconvenience to people who are opposed to it. I don’t think the government has a duty to protect your corpse from having to check a box during your life.
It’s of use to the deceased’s family, which makes it different from this situation because this is about a living person expressing a preference.
I understand the comparison you’re making. I just don’t think it’s relevant because the only thing these two situations have in common is a dead body.
Is this the other side of the personhood begins at conception debate? There is no individual after a person dies - or does personhood last until the corpse rots?
How do you know that 95% of the people who don’t opt out want to donate their organs? What about their rights? The arguments are symmetrical - except opt out saves real, living, people.
Larry Niven wrote some science fiction stories around this idea.
Old people need organs more than young people.
Old people vote more than young people.
First you make donation mandatory- even for prisoners.
Then you start increasing death penalty offenses.
Pretty soon, anyone under 60 who gets caught jaywalking is cut up for spare parts.
Your corpse is also not the property of you either. Who it belongs to may vary a bit but there are sever limits on what they can do with it. Do you really honestly feel so strongly about your own dead body that you would rather let people die over the principle? Over going online and checking a box on a form? Or when you renew your license? We are talking about saving actual human lives, it could be your mother or son one day in need.