If there is an increase in people donating organs, there is less reason for a doctor to let you “just die” because there is a bigger pool of people to harvest from.
In other words, assuming that the opt-out system would increase the number of donors, a potential donor would be safer in the opt-out system than in the opt-in system.
If organ donation were ever made obligatory I would be sure before I died to take some substance that would render my organs unsuitable for transplant, and would also work to promote such a substance and encourage as many people to take it as possible. If the government is going to take our organs by force, we should at least make sure it can’t derive any benefit from them.
And I agree that there’s nothing wrong with harvesting viable organs to save a life, if the donor consents. Otherwise, it’s theft and mutilation.
No, it’s just compassionate recycling. You can’t steal from someone who doesn’t exist. Deliberately poisoning your organs to prevent the possiblity of saving a life is childish and sociopathic.
I’ve heard that the number one reason some organ donors die is the organ-donation procedure itself. That is they are alive when their organs are removed. There was a story about a hospital having a policy of treating a certain condition with a drug that was known to mask signs of life, if they were a donor. Not sure if I can find it, but I can give a link to something I said in another discussion.
Can they do anything for this girl?
Here’s another (serious IMHO) problem with the opt-out situation. Since the default is harvest, what if the form to opt out is in the mail when the person dies? They get their organs harvested and they find that their afterlife body is missing a heart or something.
Fuck their afterlife body.
And how about a cite for anyone being killed by a premature organ harvest.
I had put off making a decision about donation until recent heart attack made me think about this issue again. I signed a donor card, which I carry in my wallet. My heart may not be acceptable for transplant, and my liver may have been damaged by former heavy drinking, but I opted to donate my entire body for medical research. The donor card says “This is a legally binding agreement.” It is signed, dated and witnessed. I had told my sister I wanted to go to medical school when I die, and she didn’t like the idea. But with this card the matter is out of her hands.
I have a real problem with the government mandating anything as personal as organ donation, though, Dio. I can agree with you that many people’s ideas about disposition of their remains are derived from what I would call “superstition.” But all people have the right to their beliefs, whether you and I agree with them or not. If the government actually could mandate the harvesting of organs, we wouldn’t be in a free country anymore. Enough erosion of our freedoms has occurred already. How could you advocate even more government control?
Sure they have a right to their beliefs…as long as they’re alive. Once they die, they cease to exist. A slab of meat has no rights.
Good point.
I wasn’t so much against changing the default as I was in the “body belongs to us now, no ifs and or butts” type mentality. For those without family to e there and speak for them, again, what would prevent a less diligent approach to saving their lives, than those who have family standing by ready for the nay or yea?
FTR, I’m a donor, and I am more asking this in curiosity rather than with any fury or serious “dog in the fight”.
Although I really dislike the dismissive “slab of meat” comments. They seem to be designed to be purposely provoking, and not in a good way. And I also believe that after the soul departs the body is not the person, but just their earlthly shell. But still …jeez “slab of meat”? Come on.
Yes, slab of meat. Grow the fuck up, people. This is exactly the kind of superstitious bullshit I’m talking about. Once a person dies there is nothing left but decaying tissue. Let’s not attach “personhood” to rotting meat.
And by the way, remember that we’re weighing the rights of a corpse against the imperative to save the life of a living person.
If you had a child who was going to die without a kidney and you had access to a fresh corpse whose previous owner had goofy beliefs about “afterlife bodies” would you rather disrespect that memory or let your child die?
I’m not just trying to provoke I’m trying to be a realist. I have no patience for superstition when lives hang in the balance.
I can’t speak for the others, but for me it has absolutely nothing to do with superstition. As I said in my previous post, I also believe that nothing is left once the you that actually was you is gone.
I am objecting to the dismissive, disrespectful tone of the phrase itself, not what it represents. I don’t think there is anything sacred about the body. But that was someone’s loved one. No reason to dump it in the dirt, figuratively speaking.
It’s unneccesarily harsh phrasing to relay the belief that the body is not the person who once existed, I don’t understand why you insist upon that particularly crude phrase to define what could be defined in a myriad of other ways. None of which would be so insulting.
Yes, the body is only it’s phsyical form now, flesh, bones etc. But those who LOVED that person are still alive, and their feelings and sensibilties, as they themselves are NOT yet “slabs of meat”, do count. So not saying harsh hurful things is important. No, not for the dead, for those still alive.
And THAT, not some silly superstition, is why I object to that phrase.
First thanks to CandidGamera for answering my questions a few pages back and I’ll leave that discussion there as it’s not really on the opt-in/opt-out track.
Here’s some a link with some information, there’s stuff at the bottom about other countries experince. That would seem to indicate that it doesn’t make too much difference.
To the people against an opt-out scheme, if there was a poll and a majority of people in your country supported the scheme would you change your views ?
As to the “slab of meat” phrasing used, it’s unnecessary. A corpse is someones loved one and is important to the various relatives, it is also (for a short while after death) a source of valuable organs that can save and/or improve the life of other living people. It’s easily possible to be sensitive to all these needs with a bit of work.
For my money I’d like to see a well publicisied opt-out system, perhaps with opt-out forms distributed to all households (with the census ? taxes ? voting registrations ? all of the above). I’d settle for honouring the rights of the donor and removing the override of the next-of-kin.
I too would like to see a cite for death, or malpractice, caused in the pursuit of organs to harvest. Sure there are the ‘angels of death’ doctors/nurses but some people are evil jerks – it ain’t the fault of the system.
Sorry to pick on you yBeayf but I think it’s struck me what I dislike about this and earlier similar statements. You’re poisoning your organs to strike back at the government for its policy but the government doesn’t give two hoots and the only people you’re harming are the potential donees and their families.
Final questions in an already too long post: In the US can you sell your organs legally ? Is there money in the organ market ?
SD
Lung - if you need a new lung, you need it now. There are no artificial lungs.
Liver - if your liver fails you are dead within 24 hours. There are no artificial livers.
Just filled out a donor form after reading (most of) this thread. Will tell the parents when I speak to them next, though they most probably know.
I had planned on doing this anyway but you know what stopped me? Same thing that stops people making wills, sorting their life insurance etc. namely, the thought of oneself being dead. Yes, people dying one day is hardly news, but most people one some level don’t really believe it or at the very least don’t like to think about it. That organ donation conjures up images of dying young in horrid car crashes doesn’t help.
Opt out system definetely.
Now for the Pit bit. I think many people who are so violently opposed to this might want to look inward and see if it’s fear of death that’s causes their reaction rather than all clever arguments and principles. If that’s not the case for you, fine, but think because you’re argument better be pretty damn clever for it to justify someone’s death. Like your mother, husband, child or self.
No, why should it? Society at large does not have a right to dictate what happens to my body once I’m dead. Beyond ensuring that I’m disposed of in a sanitary manner that is. I contend that people have a right to observe their own burial rites without having to jump through hoops to opt out of any system they disagree with.
Marc
I’m an organ donor myself, after the death of my father we gave permission to harvest what they could from him, and I’m against the opt-out system. The fact that someone might need the organs of the recently deceased does not automatically mean they have a right to expect those organs.
Marc
I have to admit, I am not an organ donor, and likely will not ever be one. Practically speaking, I expose myself to so many chemicals on a regular basis that my body probably isn’t exactly in the best shape, and though I try I don’t take terribly good care of myself either. Plus, to be honest, the idea of some person I don’t know walking around with my body parts just really weirds me out for some reason. It might be different if I was donating an organ to someone I knew and trusted. I know it’s not rational, but there you have it. I don’t donate blood because, while I’m under/right at the weight limit anyway, even having a tiny bit of blood drawn makes me feel like the life is being sucked out of me, and I have a panic attack and nearly faint. I’ve only had blood taken by a Dr once, to check out some heart problems I was having/have.
Another reason that organ donation slightly bothers me, is that even if I donate an organ (and I didn’t read through the ENTIRE thread, so I don’t know if this has been discussed or not), someone is going to take it, and profit off harvesting it and putting it in someone else. It seems that, in that case, who ever gets my inheritance should receive some compensation for that. Yes, I understand said people are paying for the medical procedure, but they can’t do that procedure without my liver or heart or what-have-you to begin with. If I die at age 50 when I could’ve lived until 70 if I’d had more access to stuff like preventative care, why should I give back to a system that never worked for me?
Will I ever change my mind? I confess if the US was to come through with some kind of universal healthcare system, where it didn’t seem like those lucky enough to have jobs with insurance or gobs of money are the only ones to really be cared for, then I’d feel much more benevolent about having my body sliced up after death and just doled out to those in need. Spiteful? Maybe. But it’s just something I can’t reconcile with myself.
Spiritually, I have always wanted to be cremated – all of me, complete. That is just something I have wanted for a very long time. I’m not going to try to quantify or explain it, as that’s really neither here nor there.
Hopefully with cloning and stem cell technology, this may become a moot point within two or three decades anyway. I don’t think I’d have a problem with an opt-out system, as long as it was very easy to opt-out and if you did, that was the be-all end all of it – no coercement or harassment, etc.
Look… I agree with your basic idea. That the reasons for wanting to opt-out should be good ones, not just projecting a fear of death or what have you. But it’s not MY fault someone died if I refuse to donate my organs. I don’t have to justify someone’s death. It is not my fault someone got sick, it’s not my fault they need a new liver or eyeballs or a heart or whatever. It would suck if I needed one of those things to live, but I am not going to begrudge someone else their decision. I don’t owe anyone organs, and no one owes me theirs. Everyone should have the right to do what they want with their own body, no need for the guilt trip. I’m grateful for everyone out there that is comfortable with donating their organs after death. I hope like Hell I never need one, because I’d probably rather just die than live with the guilt that they could do something I can’t.
It’s up to the system to define a standard - then I decide if the standard as defined is acceptable to me. Just off the top of my head, someone told by a doctor “Your drinking has scarred your liver beyond recognition - you will need a transplant in the next three months to live” - then goes out and gets hammered because hey - in three months he’ll either be dead, or have a fresh new liver to kill - is an alcoholic. Someone who gets drunk more than… oh, say, four nights a week? I’d call that alcoholic too.
Okay, didn’t realize that about the Liver - but isn’t it also true that people can survive with partial livers for quite a while?
I thought I already said hearts and lungs were immediate ones… maybe I didn’t.