Organ Transplant Bill
Discussion
PurpleMoonlight said:
Life isn't that precious.
When your time is up your time is up.
That's a strange point of view. Does it go for children who would die without intervention? Is there an age limit? Does it go for you?When your time is up your time is up.
I would agree that there is no logic to keeping someone alive for a short period merely for them to die of something else, although how long is short is a difficult question. But then there's little logic in bequeathing your organs to the worms, blowflies and other decomposers.
Derek Smith said:
That's a strange point of view. Does it go for children who would die without intervention? Is there an age limit? Does it go for you?
I would agree that there is no logic to keeping someone alive for a short period merely for them to die of something else, although how long is short is a difficult question. But then there's little logic in bequeathing your organs to the worms, blowflies and other decomposers.
Life isn't fair. Some will die younger than others.I would agree that there is no logic to keeping someone alive for a short period merely for them to die of something else, although how long is short is a difficult question. But then there's little logic in bequeathing your organs to the worms, blowflies and other decomposers.
If they can benefit from the gift of an organ then great, and I am more than willing for my taxes to pay the NHS to perform that operation, but to harvest someones organs without permission is, in my opinion, barbaric. They are my organs and I should have the last word on what happens to them not the State.
If the State want to improve transplantations they should seek to educate and promote more, and remove the ability for others to deny the deceased's wishes.
grumbledoak said:
Because this is a grotesque asset grab by an organisation that cares only about it's position in performance tables that might be used against it. It actually kills an enormous number of people annually. Somehow that never makes the front pages, but transplant rates were making it look bad. And simple human dignity is even lower on their priorities list than patient outcomes. So "what to do about it?" took them minutes. Even so, they pushed it out quietly first in Wales to see if people were paying attention, and there has been plenty of emotive media coverage to help it over the line.
If voting changed anything it would have been banned centuries ago; the biggest protest in my lifetime achieved nothing; and though we are possibly overdue a guillotine event I doubt that this will be the trigger. So, while I think adults should seriously consider donating their organs - remember, I was opted in - I don't see any other form of protest available to me.
Of course, all they have to do now is forget to update their records, or forget to check them. I'm sure they'll admit the error and apologize afterwards. Not.
I don't quite understand that - you're organ donations don't really work and kill a lot of people? Or are you meaning the NHS in general? If it is organ donation why would they increase it if it will make the statistics worse for people dying? If voting changed anything it would have been banned centuries ago; the biggest protest in my lifetime achieved nothing; and though we are possibly overdue a guillotine event I doubt that this will be the trigger. So, while I think adults should seriously consider donating their organs - remember, I was opted in - I don't see any other form of protest available to me.
Of course, all they have to do now is forget to update their records, or forget to check them. I'm sure they'll admit the error and apologize afterwards. Not.
Voting does change stuff - just slowly and it needs to be something big enough. Labour effectively lost their position due to a 'protest' in the election about Iraq and the economy for example. Something like this is unlikely to so something as you said, but you can't have the public voting on every issue. So how do you make a decision otherwise?
PurpleMoonlight said:
Life isn't fair. Some will die younger than others.
If they can benefit from the gift of an organ then great, and I am more than willing for my taxes to pay the NHS to perform that operation, but to harvest someones organs without permission is, in my opinion, barbaric. They are my organs and I should have the last word on what happens to them not the State.
If the State want to improve transplantations they should seek to educate and promote more, and remove the ability for others to deny the deceased's wishes.
While I agree that 'life isn't fair'; in fact biology is decidedly unfair, 'tooth and claw'.If they can benefit from the gift of an organ then great, and I am more than willing for my taxes to pay the NHS to perform that operation, but to harvest someones organs without permission is, in my opinion, barbaric. They are my organs and I should have the last word on what happens to them not the State.
If the State want to improve transplantations they should seek to educate and promote more, and remove the ability for others to deny the deceased's wishes.
However that doesn't justify working to make it less fair. Human beings are a social species, working socially increases peoples survival a strategy found right across ecosystems. You should take a look at 'biological cheats' and why it is poor 'choice' as a survival strategy.
Your demand to have the 'last say' when you're dead is tilting at windmills.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Life isn't fair. Some will die younger than others.
If they can benefit from the gift of an organ then great, and I am more than willing for my taxes to pay the NHS to perform that operation, but to harvest someones organs without permission is, in my opinion, barbaric. They are my organs and I should have the last word on what happens to them not the State.
If the State want to improve transplantations they should seek to educate and promote more, and remove the ability for others to deny the deceased's wishes.
I don't think you've read the proposed legislation. Further, as you say, you don't have the last word nowadays. At least, if the new legislation is passed, you will have it seems. If they can benefit from the gift of an organ then great, and I am more than willing for my taxes to pay the NHS to perform that operation, but to harvest someones organs without permission is, in my opinion, barbaric. They are my organs and I should have the last word on what happens to them not the State.
If the State want to improve transplantations they should seek to educate and promote more, and remove the ability for others to deny the deceased's wishes.
My controversial belief is that when you are dead, you are dead. I have references if you have doubts. Following on from that, the country should not be run as some form of weird necrocracy.
As you say, life isn't fair. The legislation goes some way to counterbalance the unfairness.
PurpleMoonlight said:
They are my organs and I should have the last word on what happens to them not the State.
For something that doesn't affect you or the decisions you have made, i'm surprised you are so vociferous. You are prepared to reverse your decision to donate and potentially deny somebody a lifesaving transplant just because the government have made a call that doesn't affect you in the slightest*?(assuming of course you were telling the truth about having already signed up for a doner card in the first place)
Moonhawk said:
For something that doesn't affect you or the decisions you have made, i'm surprised you are so vociferous. You are prepared to reverse your decision to donate and potentially deny somebody a lifesaving transplant just because the government have made a call that doesn't affect you in the slightest*?
(assuming of course you were telling the truth about having already signed up for a doner card in the first place)
(assuming of course you were telling the truth about having already signed up for a doner card in the first place)
You are confusing me with someone else.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Moonhawk said:
For something that doesn't affect you or the decisions you have made, i'm surprised you are so vociferous. You are prepared to reverse your decision to donate and potentially deny somebody a lifesaving transplant just because the government have made a call that doesn't affect you in the slightest*?
(assuming of course you were telling the truth about having already signed up for a doner card in the first place)
(assuming of course you were telling the truth about having already signed up for a doner card in the first place)
You are confusing me with someone else.
The fact is though - you still get a say in what happens.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Life isn't that precious.
When your time is up your time is up.
Really?When your time is up your time is up.
So someone's donation could extend your life usefully by 10yrs, 15yrs etc.. But you'll be happy to simply cark it?
Makes one wonder why you bother to get up each day. Did your wife leave with the kids this morning?
Murph7355 said:
Really?
So someone's donation could extend your life usefully by 10yrs, 15yrs etc.. But you'll be happy to simply cark it?
Makes one wonder why you bother to get up each day. Did your wife leave with the kids this morning?
So someone's donation could extend your life usefully by 10yrs, 15yrs etc.. But you'll be happy to simply cark it?
Makes one wonder why you bother to get up each day. Did your wife leave with the kids this morning?
Thanks for confirming the concept of donation, and not harvesting.
And no, 13 years ago actually.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Thanks for confirming the concept of donation, and not harvesting.
So, just to be sure we're all on the same page here, the difference between "donation" and "harvesting" is simply whether a lack of expressed opinion is presumed to be opt-in or opt-out, with the option to go against that presumption still readily available...?And, in your opinion, half of EU countries (and over half the population) are already subject to "harvesting"?
PurpleMoonlight said:
And no, 13 years ago actually.
Can't blame her, but that's a long while to hold such a grudge against humanity.Derek Smith said:
That's a strange point of view. Does it go for children who would die without intervention? Is there an age limit? Does it go for you?
I would agree that there is no logic to keeping someone alive for a short period merely for them to die of something else, although how long is short is a difficult question. But then there's little logic in bequeathing your organs to the worms, blowflies and other decomposers.
The >vast< majority of organs are incinerated. No worm gets a look in. I would agree that there is no logic to keeping someone alive for a short period merely for them to die of something else, although how long is short is a difficult question. But then there's little logic in bequeathing your organs to the worms, blowflies and other decomposers.
From what I've read and heard on both sides of the debate I think a default opt-in is a sensible compromise.
The bottom line is that people are lazy and I include myself in that.
On balance on this particular issue I think a system where people have to make an effort to do something because they feel strongly enough to want to opt out is better than the current situation.
The bottom line is that people are lazy and I include myself in that.
On balance on this particular issue I think a system where people have to make an effort to do something because they feel strongly enough to want to opt out is better than the current situation.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff