Because, sadly, a lot (most?) people are lazy fucks and they’ll not go out of their way to do something to help others (opt-in). They will however do something to help themselves (opt-out). I know there are lots of people, me included, that have made the effort to opt-in but lots of people who would do so haven’t quite got round to it and maybe never will.
SD
As I understand it, someone who is actively living a healthier life will be placed higher on the organ donation list than someone who’s addicted to drugs, smokes, drinks, that sort of thing.
Sure, they may have gotten themselves into their situation on their own, but unless they’ve cleaned up, they aren’t going to get the parts they need.
Yep, because they deserve a punishment of death for having made some bad lifestyle choices. They will die horrible, painful deaths, but at least you’ll get a warm fuzzy from feeling self-righteous. After all, you’ve been promoted to Grand Judge of Humanity.
Putz.
What the hell are you talking about? All I’m saying is that if you feel that your religion demands that you take your organs to the grave, rather than leaving them behind to help your fellow man, you can opt-out.
Personally, I don’t think that religion is a valid excuse, and that any god that demands it doesn’t deserve worship. Not that I believe in a god. Which I don’t.
Let’s turn the question around- does your god, CandidGamera, demand that you take all your parts to the grave? If so, how does that make you feel, knowing that those parts could’ve saved lives?
Lib’s just practicing argument by exaggeration, I suspect.
Yes. Because if enough people think this way, then in the interest of saving lives, the system will be reformed to allow people like me to specify limits on how their organs will be used, which will in turn encourage us to actually sign up.
As it stands, the only right I have with regards to my remains is to determine whether or not they will be used. That’s not good enough for me. So I don’t participate, until they change the system to expand my choices.
It’s a variation of the old passive resistance ploy.
I’m not judging. I’m refusing to enable self-destructive behavior.
I don’t think your post in which you said you wouldn’t accept any religious objections said word one about an opt-out system.
Is it just that Freedom of Religion part of the First Amendment you disagree with, or the whole thing? Pesky press…
As a Generic Christian™, no, my God doesn’t demand that. My personal code of ethics, however, prevents me from participating in the system as it stands. How do I feel about that? I’m fine. We’re all fine here. How are you?
Just out of interest, would you expand your criteria beyond things like smoking to issues such as political persuasion or other preferences?
I can see it now:
“I don’t want my organs going to any Republicans, or to anyone who opposes abortion or gay marriage”
“My organs are not to be given to liberals, leftists, Democrats, or anyone from a blue state.”
“First preference for my organs should be given to Ravens and Orioles fans, and under no circumstances are Steelers or Yankees fans to be considered.”
“I’m a vegetarian, and i don’t want my organs given to any meat-eaters.”
Can we compromise? If I were to smother your organs in onions…that didn’t come out right…let me try again…
Personally, I’m in favor of socialized health care, but that’s a whole 'nother can of worms around here so I’d rather not focus on that too much. However, you state that this would be done “without their consent” but by not opting out they *were * giving consent, so I’m not sure what you mean there. If your belief is that the donated organs would go only to those people with cushy health care plans and connections, I disagree. I believe that with an increase in donations, the demand for organs would be not so desparate and instances of corruption or fraud would be preventable or managable. Perhaps an objective agency to handle all claims in order of dire need and likely outcome? Like donation triage.
As it stands now, the rich and connected likely *do * have an edge simply because there are so few donations. If livers were suddenly available to any and all who needed them, the incentive for blackmarket sales or preferential donations would disapppear, one would hope. I’m not saying the idea is perfectly developed. However, someone already stated that some European nations already practice opt-out systems. Apparently the logistics have been tackled elsewhere, why not try the same here?
Because as the OP points out, people are dying when they could be saved by organs that are now left to rot or burn.
Do you really believe that the occasional (probably very rare) person having their organs harvested posthumously when that may not have been their wish is actually a worse situation than people dying because they did not get a needed organ?
You must be so proud of yourself. Don’t break your arm patting yourself on the back.
Me? No. I wouldn’t limit based on any of those criteria. Do I think that potential donors should be able to specify criteria like that? Yup. If they’re such a passionate Orioles fan that they don’t want a Damn Yankee to have their spleen, then let them make that choice, because there are plenty of non-Yankee fans out there that could use that spleen, and being able to specify that will encourage the potential donor to sign up.
I didn’t state it, because it had been brought up by other posters. Now that you know I intended it to be an opt-out system, are you going to keep objecting on these grounds?
It’s more that I’m expressing my right to free speech. Or do you have something against that particular right?
Feel free to worship whatever god you want. I’ll feel free to think you’re an idiot, but that’s neither here nor there.
You see, the beauty of an opt-out system is that you can, surprise, opt out, for no matter what reason. If you do so for religious reasons, it’s my right to think you’re being a selfish prick- but I can’t stop you from opting out.
Then fix the damn system. Sitting on your hands, saying, “I won’t donate 'til the system runs perfectly” is effectively killing people, some of whom don’t deserve to die.
It’s not a thing to be proud of or ashamed of. It’s what I believe, so it’s what I do. If I did otherwise, I’d be a hypocrite, and couldn’t live with myself.
CandidGamera you do know that your system of letting donors specify things about their donee is unworkable, yes ? Say Joe Bloggs smoked and needs a lung transplant, do you deny him the transplant because he smoked ? What if he’s turned over a new life and swore off the cigs if only he can get a new lung ? Once he’s got the lung what’s to stop him going right back to smoking ? It’s not like they’re going to take it back.
Or if you wouldn’t give smokers your lungs at all what about ex-smokers ? Smokers who have non-smoking related problems ?
Who decides all of this for you ? What recourse does anyone have if someone ‘cheats’ – and who seeks it (after all, you’re dead).
This is ignoring the administration of the system and the lawsuits that would get thrown around.
Basically your passive resistance ain’t gonna change the system, all it’s going to do is put people at risk and perhaps ultimately lead to the death of people who could otherwise be saved.
All this is ignoring the fact the poor life choices shouldn’t really be a cause to condem people passively or otherwise.
SD
There are LOTS of ways to save lives, you twit licker. That doesn’t mean you should do them all. If you want to save lives, start a fucking rescue squad.
Jackass.
Then I suggest you re-read what you put there, because it sounded like you were more in line with the ones suggesting that no one be allowed to opt out for any reason.
Not at all. I’m just trying to clarify your position in my mind.
That’s wonderful, but it sounds like if you were made the all-powerful dictator, you’d prevent people from opting out on the basis of religion…
Like when you say things like that, for instance. And Freedom of Religion isn’t just a set of pretty words to guarantee you the right to quietly, meekly pay homage to an omnipotent figure within the confines of your own head, it is the freedom to make choices based on that belief, including the dispositions of one’s remains.
I’m no legal eagle. I haven’t the money to run for office. And frankly, there are a hell of a lot more important things for me to think about than this issue. I’m fine with the situation as it is - the system will come to me when it needs me.
If they don’t know that they have to opt out, then it’s non-consensual no matter which way you slice it. So, again, how are you going to make sure that every single citizen knows they have to opt-out if they don’t want the government taking their organs when they die?
No, my belief is that the donated organs would go only to those people that actually have health care plans.
Do the nations where it’s being implemented have socialized health care?