Opt-Out Organ Donor System - Opinions 34 replies

Please wait...

Datarock VIP Member

Resynchronizing with RealitySorry, You're Not a Winner

65,745 XP

18th April 2006

0 Uploads

6,117 Posts

0 Threads

#1 10 years ago

Not so long ago, the Prime Minister called for a national debate about whether Britain should move towards a new system of organ donation in which everyone is a potential donor unless they opt-out. The idea is to ask you what you personally think of this?

Writing in The Sunday Telegraph several months back, Mr. Brown said he supported the proposal to allow hospitals to remove organs from anyone when they die, unless they explicitly opt-out of the scheme beforehand, or their families object.

There are currently more than 8,000 people on the organ transplant list in the UK and advisers believe the new proposals could double the number of organs available and save thousands of lives, however, several patients groups are against this type of system, arguing that it is not up to the state to decide what becomes of people's bodies when they die.

To me, being brutally honest, this is an abhorrent idea.

Look at it like this. My organs belong to me - they are my property. I have the right to do with them as I wish. This proposal basically says that by default my organs belong to the state unless I ask for them back. Now, does this sound right to anyone? Perhaps charities should start setting up direct debits that you have to opt-out of in order to avoid giving them your money?

No, my property is mine by default and I should have to actively give it to someone else. There should be no legislation transferring ownership of any of my property to someone else by default. I'm not saying I do not agree with being an organ donor, however, that choice should be mine to make, not the governments'.

Another point is the intention. The aim is to double the number of donors. Let's examine this for a moment. How will this increase happen? It won't be through people pro-actively choosing to give their organs away. It will be through people not feeling strongly enough about it to opt-out. Or, potentially, not getting round to it in time or not understanding that they have to opt-out. In short, this scheme will increase the number of donors by ensuring that many people who do not actually want to give their organs away end up doing so through various reasons. As I seem to recall, there is a lot of fuss about companies signing people up to schemes that they have to opt-out of in order to avoid paying for and this is worse.

And what about mistakes? At the moment the default is that an organ belongs to the owner and cannot be harvested. If this is passed the mistakes will be to assume that the organ is donated and people will be having their organs stolen by the state.

In short then, the problems are: 1) The transfer of my property to someone else by default. 2) The cynical exploitation being used by this proposal to get more donors. 3) The likely increase in theft of organs through ineptitude and mistakes.

Opinions and thoughts? Would you agree with a system of "presumed consent"?




Tas

Serious business brigade

50 XP

4th September 2004

0 Uploads

7,275 Posts

0 Threads

#2 10 years ago

On first glance it sounds like a grand idea.

People that feel strongly enough about it can take their organs into the dirt or furnace, those that don't care or don't mind will save thousands upon thousands of lives. I care more for those lives than i do for people's unwillingness to sign a form saying they don't want their organs harvested to be brutally honest.




homo sine domino

 

50 XP

1st September 2002

0 Uploads

2,739 Posts

0 Threads

#3 10 years ago

Mr.Gav;4256862Look at it like this. My organs belong to me - they are my property. I have the right to do with them as I wish. This proposal basically says that by default my organs belong to the state unless I ask for them back.[/QUOTE]You do own your organs. Though the moment you're dead, well, you can't own anything anymore. =p

I think it's a good idea. :cheer:

Mr.Gav;4256862Another point is the intention. The aim is to double the number of donors. Let's examine this for a moment. How will this increase happen? It won't be through people pro-actively choosing to give their organs away. It will be through people not feeling strongly enough about it to opt-out. Or, potentially, not getting round to it in time or not understanding that they have to opt-out. In short, this scheme will increase the number of donors by ensuring that many people who do not actually want to give their organs away end up doing so through various reasons.
Well, the government could initiate a large campaign to make people consider it. Then again, that costs a *lot* more money than making the system opt-out. If you're not sure, just opt-out and later, if your mind changes, just opt back in. I don't really see a problem there.[QUOTE=Mr.Gav;4256862]Now, does this sound right to anyone? Perhaps charities should start setting up direct debits that you have to opt-out of in order to avoid giving them your money?

If you're freaking dead, you have worse problems than people using your organs to give other people a chance to live. Seriously.

Organ removal after death is no loss.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#4 10 years ago

I think it's fine, who cares what happens to your organ's after you die? And if, for instance, you must hold on to them as part of your religious beliefs it should be easy enoguh to opt-out. The problem with volunteer organ donation is that there are probaly plenty of people who would do it but don't feel like bothering to actually be listed as such.




UNDIESRULES

Waffle-Sprocket is broke

11,795 XP

24th November 2003

0 Uploads

1,097 Posts

0 Threads

#5 10 years ago

They can have anything they want out of me when i kick the bucket. Good luck to them cos half the stuff i got doesnt work as well as it should anyway :) Pickled kidneys, drowned liver and a 20 per day habit have buggered up my insides but they are welcome to the lot. If it helps anybody in any way, even if its just my chorneas, its theirs.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#6 10 years ago

If this were the law where I resided, then I would do my best to be sure that my remains were not salvageable via whatever means I deemed acceptable, just to spite them. Filthy thieves.




Rich19

Italicised no more

50 XP

14th August 2004

0 Uploads

4,058 Posts

0 Threads

#7 10 years ago

Mr.Gav;4256862Not so long ago, the Prime Minister called for a national debate about whether Britain should move towards a new system of organ donation in which everyone is a potential donor unless they opt-out. The idea is to ask you what you personally think of this?[/quote]

I think it's an excellent solution to the shortage of organs available for transplants.

Mr.Gav;4256862To me, being brutally honest, this is an abhorrent idea.

Look at it like this. My organs belong to me - they are my property. I have the right to do with them as I wish. This proposal basically says that by default my organs belong to the state unless I ask for them back. Now, does this sound right to anyone? Perhaps charities should start setting up direct debits that you have to opt-out of in order to avoid giving them your money?[/quote]

Your organs are your property. But when you die, there is no more you that can own organs (or anything else, for that matter, which is why we have wills). Your money does not go to the government because you or your family can specify who it goes to in your will. This scheme basically extends this to include organs as something you can decide the future of.

Mr.Gav;4256862 No, my property is mine by default and I should have to actively give it to someone else. There should be no legislation transferring ownership of any of my property to someone else by default. I'm not saying I do not agree with being an organ donor, however, that choice should be mine to make, not the governments'.[/quote]

If your property cannot go to anyone else by default, there would be a large backlog of stuff owned by people who died before they could make wills. By default, IIRC, your stuff goes to your closest relatives. Your organs can be thought of as belonging to humanity in general - they go to help humanity after you die.

[quote=Mr.Gav;4256862] Another point is the intention. The aim is to double the number of donors. Let's examine this for a moment. How will this increase happen? It won't be through people pro-actively choosing to give their organs away. It will be through people not feeling strongly enough about it to opt-out.

Nothing wrong with this. If people don't feel strongly, they don't object.

[quote=Mr.Gav;4256862]Or, potentially, not getting round to it in time or not understanding that they have to opt-out.

In the current system, I'm sure there are people who never get/got round to opting in. Or not understanding that they have to opt in.

[quote=Mr.Gav;4256862]In short, this scheme will increase the number of donors by ensuring that many people who do not actually want to give their organs away end up doing so through various reasons.

Providing this is sufficiently publicised, if they don't want their organs taken away, they will opt out. If they don't bother to opt out, they have no grounds for an objection. Remember that close family can also opt out on behalf of a deceased relative - this is a potential safeguard against those whose lives were prematurely cut short and did wish to opt out.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#8 10 years ago

I think its good, its either that, or people will have to pay to get higher on the donor lists, saw that on the news




Bs|Archaon

I would die without GF

50 XP

15th March 2006

0 Uploads

5,910 Posts

0 Threads

#9 10 years ago

To me, organ donoring is just like giving blood, although obviously since you're dead it's on a more...finite level. Only people that feel strongly about it give blood, it's not something you randomly go out and do. To me not being willing to give your organs to save someone elses' life just because they're your organs strikes me as rather selfish. They're useless to you, but they can potentially give someone (possibly more than one person, if they take a number of organs) their life back.

No, I don't like the Government forcing me to do something; but in this case I think it's something that needs to be done. Let's face it, people aren't going to do it by themselves, and they're not actually forcing us to do it. You still have the right to keep your organs, so I feel that you're just arguing semantics. In my opinion, if you can save someone's life at - let's just be clear on this - absolutely NO cost to you, semantics just don't matter. Period.

Like Rich said, as long as it is given enough coverage and people know that they have to opt out I don't see a problem. After a while it will become normal anyway: people will accept it as normal, and they'll know to opt out if they don't want to donate their organs. If they were talking about removing the choice then I'd have a problem, but they're not. I think you're blowing it way out of proportion.

If you don't like it, opt out. End of story.

PS - Thanks, this topic reminded me to register. Been meaning to for a while.




masked_marsoe VIP Member

Heaven's gonna burn your eyes

50 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

8,063 Posts

0 Threads

#10 10 years ago
tyrannicidaYou do own your organs. Though the moment you're dead, well, you can't own anything anymore.

Agreed.

If the opt-out process is clear and easy, then I don't see a problem.