Organ Transplant Bill

[djc206]

Jinx said:

It is the change to the relationship between the state and the individual. Assumed consent is what made rape within marriage a non-crime. What else could the state assume consent over?

Nothing. This happens in dozens of countries to the benefit of hundreds of people every year and the detriment of none.

[Jinx]

djc206 said:

Nothing. This happens in dozens of countries to the benefit of hundreds of people every year and the detriment of none.

Euthanasia is legal in many countries and since becoming legal the pain management techniques have fallen far behind those countries that do not allow euthanasia.
Organ harvesting with assumed consent may result in life prolonging techniques not being developed - necessity drives invention. We cannot know the consequences of far reaching legislation.
If you want to take someones organs when they die - it is only polite to ask them when they are alive.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Randy Winkman said:

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, especially with regards their own body.

Whilst you're alive. Dead people have no opinions.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Jinx said:

It is the change to the relationship between the state and the individual.

Dead people are not individuals. It could be argued that the first duty of the state is the protection, security and welfare of its citizens. That would be an argument for the state having full ownership of dead bodies, and the compulsory allocation of usable parts to citizens in need. No opt in or out, no debate, no choice.

I should imagine that for many of those awaiting an organ, and their families, this would be their preferred option.

[djc206]

Jinx said:

Euthanasia is legal in many countries and since becoming legal the pain management techniques have fallen far behind those countries that do not allow euthanasia.
Organ harvesting with assumed consent may result in life prolonging techniques not being developed - necessity drives invention. We cannot know the consequences of far reaching legislation.
If you want to take someones organs when they die - it is only polite to ask them when they are alive.

Politeness is costing hundreds of lives each year. fk politeness.

There will never be enough donors to cover the demand for organs so this will not inhibit medical science developing alternatives to donation.

I’d be interested to see some evidence for your opening statement if you’ve got anything you can link.

[Rovinghawk]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

That would be an argument for the state having full ownership of dead bodies, and the compulsory allocation of usable parts to citizens in need. No opt in or out, no debate, no choice.

Communism taken to an entirely new level, comrade.

[Randy Winkman]

fblm said:

Dear god.

I accept that religious people might think something different from me.

[djdest]

AJL308 said:

Answer the question please?

If you opt-out of donating something yet expect a donation when you are in need would it be unfair for someone to refer to you as a "dick"?

I have already said I’d happy ok with no receiving if I had opted out.
But I’m still a dick apparently

[anonymous-user]

Randy Winkman said:

fblm said:

Dear god.

I accept that religious people might think something different from me.

Sorry I was referring to the post before yours. Like we are literally one step removed from the government elite plundering our body for organs while we are still alive to feed to their young. FFS

[Randy Winkman]

fblm said:

Randy Winkman said:

fblm said:

Dear god.

I accept that religious people might think something different from me.

Sorry I was referring to the post before yours. Like we are literally one step removed from the government elite plundering our body for organs while we are still alive to feed to their young. FFS

No problem. I don't really agree with you though.

[968]

Rovinghawk said:

Communism taken to an entirely new level, comrade.

That’s right, obviously it’s exactly the same as a political ideology. You stick it to those bds awaiting organ transplants. Bloody communists.

[wiggy001]

Jinx said:

wiggy001 said:

By you're own definition, all organs for transplant will be taken without consent after this law is passed.

Was that, and the rest of your sentence, just a little caveat to ensure you don't feel like a hypocrite, even though we can all see that you are?

Would I travel to Wales for a transplant now? You assume much.

Eh? You said you wouldn't accept an organ that was taken without consent. If this law is passed then all organs will be taken without consent. So either you wouldn't accept a donor organ, you would only accept one from a country where people have to opt in to be a donor or you would accept a british organ despite consent not being given explicitly by the donor.

Which is it?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Rovinghawk said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

That would be an argument for the state having full ownership of dead bodies, and the compulsory allocation of usable parts to citizens in need. No opt in or out, no debate, no choice.

Communism taken to an entirely new level, comrade.

I'm not seeing how that policy would be left wing or right wing. It's a politically neutral policy that people of all political views would support and oppose.

[Jinx]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Dead people are not individuals. It could be argued that the first duty of the state is the protection, security and welfare of its citizens. That would be an argument for the state having full ownership of dead bodies, and the compulsory allocation of usable parts to citizens in need. No opt in or out, no debate, no choice.

I should imagine that for many of those awaiting an organ, and their families, this would be their preferred option.

That is some serious dystopia you are plugging right there. The first duty of the state is to represent the wishes of the people who make up the state. That may include protection and welfare but these should not be done over the wishes of the people. Yes there are not enough donors - better schemes to encourage donation is the right thing (tax breaks, education - heck maybe just free fking parking at hospital - I would have signed up there and then when visiting my father when he was dying of renal failure). But to cross the line at assumed consent is not something I can stomach.

[Rovinghawk]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Rovinghawk said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

That would be an argument for the state having full ownership of dead bodies, and the compulsory allocation of usable parts to citizens in need. No opt in or out, no debate, no choice.

Communism taken to an entirely new level, comrade.

I'm not seeing how that policy would be left wing or right wing. It's a politically neutral policy that people of all political views would support and oppose.

"The state will own everything & control everything for the good of the people" is a pretty good semblance of communism, whether you agree or not. Power to the people, comrade citizen.

[djc206]

Jinx said:

That is some serious dystopia you are plugging right there. The first duty of the state is to represent the wishes of the people who make up the state. That may include protection and welfare but these should not be done over the wishes of the people. Yes there are not enough donors - better schemes to encourage donation is the right thing (tax breaks, education - heck maybe just free fking parking at hospital - I would have signed up there and then when visiting my father when he was dying of renal failure). But to cross the line at assumed consent is not something I can stomach.

What proportion of people support assumed consent? If they’ve consented by majority to assumed consent then no line need be drawn or crossed. Ain’t democracy great.

[Rovinghawk]

djc206 said:

What proportion of people support assumed consent? If they’ve consented by majority to assumed consent then no line need be drawn or crossed. Ain’t democracy great.

Nobody asked, they just did it. You see a trend here?

[jjlynn27]

Rovinghawk said:

Nobody asked, they just did it. You see a trend here?

I do see a trend. You seem to be angry at pretty much anything. Your constant rants about dreaded 'public sector' are mildly amusing. This thread, unfortunately, is rather sad. Someone on this thread earlier said that people are bhing and whining about stuff safe in the knowledge that if they needed an organ, they themselves are not going to be refused ones just because they are pathetic pricks. That poster was right.

ETA; LOL abusing >> amusing.

Edited by jjlynn27 on Friday 10th August 10:41

[Rovinghawk]

jjlynn27 said:

Your constant rants about dreaded 'public sector' are mildly abusing.

Leaving aside your bad English, all I want the public sector to do is leave me alone as much as possible. I dislike having to pay them to interfere in my life unnecessarily.

[jjlynn27]

Rovinghawk said:

jjlynn27 said:

Your constant rants about dreaded 'public sector' are mildly abusing.

Leaving aside your bad English, all I want the public sector to do is leave me alone as much as possible. I dislike having to pay them to interfere in my life unnecessarily.

It was meant to be 'amusing' not 'abusing'. Original post corrected.

'Leaving aside'

The post still stands. As for 'dislike to pay them'. You don't. You pay taxes to live in the country of your choosing. If you can't change the system, change the system. There must place on this Earth for someone of your abilities where you'd feel less oppressed by the state which is not only charging you to interfere in your life but also presumes that it can do whatever it likes with your organs.