At this point everything has been said that can be; there’s really nowhere to go from stating our positions, since it’s an inherently subjective topic, so I’m out.
@ WhyNot, no, the wilful stupidity thing was more “how the fuck do you draw those things into me saying it’s wrong to switch to an opt out system because you’re changing the rules on people who have no certainty of finding out”.
The solution is extremely fucking simple: there’s an organ shortage, there are people with money shortages who can survive minus a kidney who’d happily volunteer to sell one (and no, not just to the rich - the money the NHS now uses to keep people on dialysis for years can very readily be used to buy kidneys instead), and they’d probably be just as outraged as I am by the idea that a mentally competent adult willingly selling something is automatically “exploitation”. Same goes for other organs: have a system where people can sign up and, when they die, if their organs are usable, they’re bought and the money given to a nominated heir. Easy.
Again, this is based on nothing. There’s no reason to think people won’t find out, and that’s not the intent.
People will need dialysis anyway.
No, they wouldn’t. Most people think the idea of harvesting organs from the living is disgusting. That’s why it’s against the law. And unlike an opt-out system, it actually is exploitative.
You have no way of guaranteeing people will find out about the change. I can think of two things recently that changed to opt-out, which I only found out about because I keep an eye on the OFCOM website: Royal Mail is now entitled to give your packages/signed-for mail to any random person unless you put a sticker on your front door to opt out, and the Scottish NHS has now created an Electronic Care Record for its clients - unless they opted out in advance.
In neither case did I find out until it was too late, and I found out through means other than the ones meant to inform clients. So yeah, you have no way to be sure that everyone would find out if there was a switch to opt out, which will lead to bodies being violated against the will of their owner. That is nothing more than conning people to get what you want.
And once again because I can’t fucking believe you people don’t realise the horror of what you’re suggesting: no one has any right to make it my burden to opt out to suit their beliefs! You believe in doing something, YOU should sign up, YOU should go on a list, not force that on people who just want to be left alone. Why the fuck should I have to do ANYTHING, however simple and effortless, to secure my right to not be mutilated? It should remain something you have to sign up and waive if you choose to.
And again: no, offering people the option to sell organ/s is not exploitative. Are you seeing the word “option”? No one is suggesting forcing people to sell organs. And you have absolutely no right to call something exploitative when it is a matter of pure choice. If I wanted to sell a kidney, and sign up to something that ensured the people I care about got some cash when I die It’d for ME to decide if the offer was acceptable, no one else.
It’s not that hard. It’ll be all over the news, you can start a national campaign since there are already campaigns designed to increase awareness of donation, you can contact people by letters and emails and so on, and you can have new drivers’ licenses issued with a message about the new opt-out program, for example. You can’t guarantee that every single individual no matter how clueless and ignorant will find out, but you can take every reasonable step to inform everyone - since the people who actually care will be paying more attention than that. It’d get just a little bit more than an administrative health record issue or the policies of the mail service.
At some point you’re going to explain why that is, right? You’ll enlighten us about the reasons the horror of needing to check a box on a form is causing you to exclaim and curse so? Because right now I’m not seeing it. I’m just seeing claims that it’s wrong to change a policy to get better results and that people shouldn’t have to check a box to avoid something they don’t want.
I do, I am, I did.
“Check a box if you don’t want to do this” isn’t even an imposition. And your claim that they want to be left alone doesn’t make sense. We’re talking about people who aren’t paying attention to this issue or can’t be bothered to make a choice. If they choose against donating, it should be respected. But most people really don’t care. That’s why changing the default on things like this brings good results. If people have to change their behaviors, they may not do it. If a default is changed and they don’t have to do anything, they’ll go along with it.
You’re not being mutilated. The fact that you keep using words like “conned” and “mutilated” and “robbed” and exposes the weakness of your argument.
Yes, it is. No matter how it works, people in financial straits are going to be the ones who sign up to sell their organs to the rich or have the government buy their organs. (This, for some reason, is not horrifying at all, but checking a box…)
Ultimately your argument has about as much moral force and power to compel as “I shouldn’t have to Press 1 for English!” Except of course that a lot of people die for lack of organ transplants and nobody dies when Spanish speakers have to oprima numero dos.
Emphasis mine - no, you can’t guarantee you won’t cut up and rob the organs of someone who would be horrified at it, hence, you shouldn’t do it. The Royal Mail and ECR opt-outs were supposedly widely publicised, but I didn’t get a letter when it was being trialed in some tiny English town, and still haven’t received one. I doubt a switch to opt-out would be any more likely to reach people like me (no TV, don’t read newspapers, barely go out, only hear news if someone tells me).
There’s really no point continuing. This really is an issue there’s no way to reach a conclusion on. All I’ll say is my use of words like mutilation is to convey the sheer fucking horror I feel at this idea. Honestly, this shit is up there with Unit 731 for barbarity and violation of the sanctity of people’s fucking bodies. So yeah, let’s just agree to disagree.
“We no longer need to ask permission to do something you might not want, you have to tell us in advance you don’t want it!” is one of the most horrifying things a government could possibly say and I hope everyone who would even consider allowing it dies of organ failure before they manage to pass this absolutely fucking nightmarish corpse-robbing law.
Nobody is being robbed, and we can assume they would not be horrified if they are paying no attention to the issue whatsoever. If you can’t be bothered to take the smallest step to inform yourself about an issue or express any kind of wishes, it’s safe to say you probably don’t have strong feelings about it.
Then take some steps to make sure you’re informed about issues you care about. You’re already on the internet, so reading some news would be trivially easy. If you’re determined to remain ignorant, you can’t blame everyone else if sometimes you don’t find out about stuff. Individuals have to take responsibility at some level. We can take reasonable steps to inform people about these issues, but you can’t hold people down and force them to open letters and read the newspaper. If it takes that kind of effort to get someone to learn about an issue, it’s not everybody else’s fault.
It draws attention to your lack of a solid argument.
With the minor difference this is about postmortem organ donation with an opt-out clause, not vivisection and weapons testing on prisoners.
No, the most horrifying thing a government can say is “We no longer need your permission at all.” The rest of the words make it clear the government is relying on your consent and respecting your wishes.
What are you saying, that I should google organ donation every week or so to make sure the rules haven’t been changed behind my back? Are you fucking insane? Why should I have to obsess like a paranoid lunatic over whether or not the government is planning to steal my organs? Sure I’m discussing it here because it was raised, but I do not want to have to stress about it in my daily life.
My solid argument is the moral issues surrounding stealing organs from people. Your solid argument is consequentialist; that the negatives of doing this would justify it. Mine is no less “solid” than yours because they’re both pretty much matters of opinion: you think lives are more important, I think rights are more important. There’s no difference in solidity there. Your opinion is just fucked up, and I imagine you think mine is too - that doesn’t make either wrong in terms of fact.
I don’t see the distinction as minor. Violating, mutilating, defiling, desecrating, raping my body after death by harvesting its organs to put in others is just as horrifying a concept to me as the shit pulled at 731. I’m antitheist, but people’s bodies, dead or alive, are about as close to sacred as I have a concept for, and the idea of doing anything that violates someone’s’ bodily integrity without (pre-emptive, in post-mortem cases) permission makes me feel sick. I don’t feel a great deal differently about this than I would if you were suggesting we pull people in for mandatory kidney “donation” while alive. So yeah, the words I’m using aren’t about shock value, they’re as accurate a portrayal of how I feel as I can manage in type.
Note where I said “*one *of the most…”, please.
Again, this is circular and there’s no way to finish it, so I’m gonna unsubscribe.
I’m glad someone else referenced your language choices, because they are really startling. I can’t decide if I’m reacting to your posts because of your fundamental misunderstanding about organ harvesting or because this is a personal issue for me, as my mother was the recipient of an individual’s lungs and the donation is the only reason she’s alive.
Where did you get the idea that a highly skilled surgeon performing organ extraction would abandon all professional ethic and mutilate the body of someone who was gracious enough to share his or her organs after they were no longer needed? There is no reason to believe that a medical professional would behave any differently, or respect the body of an organ donor any less, even if the organs were being donated because the donor was too lazy to opt out of the process.
Although I am not religious, I guess I can appreciate religious objection to organ donation. I find it difficult to understand an objection to organ donation because of a selfish and unrealistic fear of the process.
I don’t want to get into this whole debate, but I would like to point out that a living donor can donate a whole kidney or a portion of their liver, lung, or pancreas. Some people may find it disgusting, but it’s not illegal.
Nobody is asking you to do any of these things. After we change to opt-out, you are asked if you want to opt-out the next time you renew your driver’s license. If you say “yes”, your license reflects this, and no one touches your organs for harvesting. If you don’t have your license on you, also no harvesting. The right that is being violated here is the right to, every 5 years, not have to say " i opt out" to get the status you want. I tend to prefer protecting rights, especially individual ones. But the sacrifice here appears bafflingly minor.
Actually, under your system, if a person does not specify who his or her estate goes to, it all gets burned or otherwise disposed of. Now it goes to next of kin, assuming there is any. Do you really think that the estates of those without wills should be destroyed?
That’s possibly the most deeply irrational thing I’ve ever heard. And the fact that you think this nonsensical “principle” is worth letting people die over is in the running for the most abhorrent.
So how would an opt-out system work in regards to the family’s wishes? Say we start this before I renew my license next, or before I get a chance to opt out however else it might be handled, and I die. My parents know I do not want to be an organ donor* (yes, I’ve actually discussed this with them) but if I die before getting the paperwork to opt-out submitted, would my parents be listen to? As it stands now with our opt-in system this wouldn’t be an issue.
after learning the particulars of how organ donation works I decided against it. I’ve registered for the bone marrow registry instead
Considering trying to save lives is as about important as it gets, if I had the power to enact laws, I’d make it mandatory to donate your organs upon death. Period. No religious or other exemptions either. You’re not using your body anymore, someone else should have the opportunity to survive with whatever they need from it. The rest, to me, is just BS.