Organ Transplant Bill

[Europa1]

wst said:

continues to blame "big gummint" and not the next-of-kin. Thought the point of being a "small government" person was to be [i]all/i] about the personal responsibility.

The source Rovinghawk was referring to is in the post immediately apove yours.

[moleamol]

I was going to reply on here with a reasonable response but the deluded 'I WANT MY ORGANS, EVEN WHEN I'M DEAD' lot have turned it into such a farcical 'debate' that I can't be bothered, so I'll just continue laughing.

[anonymous-user]

Rovinghawk said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Except that I wasn't saying the state would own everything. Just dead bodies.

You want the state to take possession of what it wants for the presumed good of the people, regardless of personal choice. I put it to you that it's a very good step on the road to a communist dystopia and an interesting paving slab for the road to hell due to its good intentions.

Hitler used a similar logic to yours when he took the gold teeth out of dead jews, wove their hair into cloth, etc- they didn't need them & it was for the good of the state. Based on that I'd accept that it's not communism so much as authoritarianism.

In fact why stop at internal organs? There's a desperate shortage of leather for shoes, handbags & car seats- let's utilise the skin of dead people as they no longer need it. You can just not publicise it, presume consent & crack on. It's the same argument as yours, just taken a step further.

This is possibly the maddest post I’ve ever read on PHs.

Did you opt in to the donate your skin to make handbags scheme? Is there one? No of course not.

When you take the argument “just a step further” like you have by creating scenarios that are totally over the top, it’s no longer the same argument, it’s actually hysterical hyperbole.

Organ donation is massively important and you opted in previously, now you’re up in arms about it because of your politics and the fact you see it as the government interfering and something a bit sinister,

[djc206]

El stovey said:

Rovinghawk said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Except that I wasn't saying the state would own everything. Just dead bodies.

You want the state to take possession of what it wants for the presumed good of the people, regardless of personal choice. I put it to you that it's a very good step on the road to a communist dystopia and an interesting paving slab for the road to hell due to its good intentions.

Hitler used a similar logic to yours when he took the gold teeth out of dead jews, wove their hair into cloth, etc- they didn't need them & it was for the good of the state. Based on that I'd accept that it's not communism so much as authoritarianism.

In fact why stop at internal organs? There's a desperate shortage of leather for shoes, handbags & car seats- let's utilise the skin of dead people as they no longer need it. You can just not publicise it, presume consent & crack on. It's the same argument as yours, just taken a step further.

This is possibly the maddest post I’ve ever read on PHs.

Did you opt in to the donate your skin to make handbags scheme? Is there one? No of course not.

When you take the argument “just a step further” like you have by creating scenarios that are totally over the top, it’s no longer the same argument, it’s actually hysterical hyperbole.

Organ donation is massively important and you opted in previously, now you’re up in arms about it because of your politics and the fact you see it as the government interfering and something a bit sinister,

Quite.

I like how he says why stop at internal organs. Er they don’t now! Skin is already used!

[Henners]

djc206 said:

Quite.

I like how he says why stop at internal organs. Er they don’t now! Skin is already used!

Have you seen the tool they use to harvest skin - it's bloody brilliant.

To hoist my flag - I'm all in favour of default donations, I don't know of a logical reason why someone would opt out (IMO before anyone gets face on).

[anonymous-user]

Henners said:

Have you seen the tool they use to harvest skin - it's bloody brilliant.

To hoist my flag - I'm all in favour of default donations, I don't know of a logical reason why someone would opt out (IMO before anyone gets face on).

It seems quite possible, and understandable, that someone who thought overpopulation was a serious threat to life on the planet would think it reasonable to opt out.

[Butter Face]

REALIST123 said:

Henners said:

Have you seen the tool they use to harvest skin - it's bloody brilliant.

To hoist my flag - I'm all in favour of default donations, I don't know of a logical reason why someone would opt out (IMO before anyone gets face on).

It seems quite possible, and understandable, that someone who thought overpopulation was a serious threat to life on the planet would think it reasonable to opt out.

If they’re that serious, they should opt out then go kill themselves ASAP to start solving the issue


Notseriousobviously

[wst]

REALIST123 said:

It seems quite possible, and understandable, that someone who thought overpopulation was a serious threat to life on the planet would think it reasonable to opt out.

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement? That's a fair point I guess

[Henners]

Butter Face said:

REALIST123 said:

Henners said:

Have you seen the tool they use to harvest skin - it's bloody brilliant.

To hoist my flag - I'm all in favour of default donations, I don't know of a logical reason why someone would opt out (IMO before anyone gets face on).

It seems quite possible, and understandable, that someone who thought overpopulation was a serious threat to life on the planet would think it reasonable to opt out.

If they’re that serious, they should opt out then go kill themselves ASAP to start solving the issue


Notseriousobviously

That would be a direct solution to their concern, after all it would be odd to have those thoughts without actually taking action

[AJL308]

REALIST123 said:

Henners said:

Have you seen the tool they use to harvest skin - it's bloody brilliant.

To hoist my flag - I'm all in favour of default donations, I don't know of a logical reason why someone would opt out (IMO before anyone gets face on).

It seems quite possible, and understandable, that someone who thought overpopulation was a serious threat to life on the planet would think it reasonable to opt out.

And I bet a lot of them would suddenly change their minds if they were the next person to "benefit the planet" by dying of a condition that is survivable via a transplant.

[AJL308]

Jinx said:

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.

The whole point though is that they are not a "person" when they are dead. The "person" has ceased to exist.

[AJL308]

wiggy001 said:

Which bit of "you can opt out of the system" are people struggling with?

If you die with no next of kin and no will, who gets your stuff? Would you prefer your house to sit empty for all time because you couldn't be bothered to state what you wanted to happen to it after your death?

It really is little different to that.

Precisely.

[AJL308]

Jinx said:

djc206 said:

We don’t need a referendum we have a parliamentary democracy.

This is definitely a constitutional issue, as such I would expect a referendum on something that alters the balance of state to individual rights in such a fundamental way.
So after assumed consent will families be prosecuted if they object and obstruct? Will individuals no longer be allowed to die at home? What about non-UK citizens who die in the UK?
And what about the checks for consent withdrawal? A delayed response or computer error and they'll have to give the organ back?

You are not an "individual" when you are dead. You cease to exist so you have no rights.

Your second sentence is interesting; apparently at present next of kin can object and prevent donation even if you are on the transplant register. Surely, anyone who disagrees with the presumption of consent must logically disagree with that too as it is in direct contravention of the deceased's wishes?

[djc206]

Jinx said:

djc206 said:

We don’t need a referendum we have a parliamentary democracy.

This is definitely a constitutional issue, as such I would expect a referendum on something that alters the balance of state to individual rights in such a fundamental way.
So after assumed consent will families be prosecuted if they object and obstruct? Will individuals no longer be allowed to die at home? What about non-UK citizens who die in the UK?
And what about the checks for consent withdrawal? A delayed response or computer error and they'll have to give the organ back?

There would likely be no need for a referendum. If they did a few polls which showed that the issue was an contentious as a minority on here are suggesting then sure. But if I was a gambling man I’d wager that an overwhelming majority of people would support this move and that would remove any need for it to be put to the people proper.

They wouldn’t prosecute anyone they would just ignore their objection as they should now with adults. Why is it that my wife can object to my stated preference over where my organs can go? It’s not her decision to make. Under assumed consent if I’ve not opted out then her objection should be given no weight then either.

Of course people will be able to die at home.
Why are you are making extrapolations that simply don’t make sense? This is very very simple, if you as a british person die in hospital and haven’t stated that you don’t want to donate then they will be able to take them and save lives. In all honesty it doesn’t matter if they take them by mistake which will almost certainly happen from time to time, you’re not going to know are you!? But I would assume checks and balances would be in place to minimise such errors.

[AJL308]

djc206 said:

Jinx said:

djc206 said:

We don’t need a referendum we have a parliamentary democracy.

This is definitely a constitutional issue, as such I would expect a referendum on something that alters the balance of state to individual rights in such a fundamental way.
So after assumed consent will families be prosecuted if they object and obstruct? Will individuals no longer be allowed to die at home? What about non-UK citizens who die in the UK?
And what about the checks for consent withdrawal? A delayed response or computer error and they'll have to give the organ back?

There would likely be no need for a referendum. If they did a few polls which showed that the issue was an contentious as a minority on here are suggesting then sure. But if I was a gambling man I’d wager that an overwhelming majority of people would support this move and that would remove any need for it to be put to the people proper.

They wouldn’t prosecute anyone they would just ignore their objection as they should now with adults. Why is it that my wife can object to my stated preference over where my organs can go? It’s not her decision to make. Under assumed consent if I’ve not opted out then her objection should be given no weight then either.

Of course people will be able to die at home.
Why are you are making extrapolations that simply don’t make sense? This is very very simple, if you as a british person die in hospital and haven’t stated that you don’t want to donate then they will be able to take them and save lives. In all honesty it doesn’t matter if they take them by mistake which will almost certainly happen from time to time, you’re not going to know are you!? But I would assume checks and balances would be in place to minimise such errors.

Agreed entirely. I just can't help thinking that this is another case of people looking for something to get all angry and indignant about when it's actually something massively trivial. It's not even anything particularly novel - lot's of other countries have it and it doesn't seem to be a great issue in those places.

[Jonesy23]

AJL308 said:

The whole point though is that they are not a "person" when they are dead. The "person" has ceased to exist.

To repeat what has been mentioned more than once - dead people aren't particularly useful as organ donors.

The decision is made while you're still ticking.

[AJL308]

Jonesy23 said:

AJL308 said:

The whole point though is that they are not a "person" when they are dead. The "person" has ceased to exist.

To repeat what has been mentioned more than once - dead people aren't particularly useful as organ donors.

The decision is made while you're still ticking.

So what? Once you are dead you are dead and being "dead" is a requirement for your organs being removed.

I don't see what point you are trying to make.

[Jonesy23]

The point is that you end up dead because your organs are removed. They don't remove your organs because you're dead.

So if you weren't a donor maybe you'd stay alive.

[AJL308]

Jonesy23 said:

The point is that you end up dead because your organs are removed. They don't remove your organs because you're dead.

So if you weren't a donor maybe you'd stay alive.

Total rubbish mate. Do you have anything to support that utterly irrational nonsense?

If that were the case then it would be happening now with registered donors, surely? There would be far less incentive to kill people for their organs if everyone is a potential donor. Regardless of what the loons on here say - the vast majority of people won't opt out so there will be far more donors.

I read just today that something like 400 people a year die because they didn't get a transplant. Doctors aren't doing a great job of hastening registered organ donors deaths then, are they?

Can you show me any cases where it's happened?

I mean, get a fking grip man, it's not even rational. Why would a doctor kill one person to save the life of another? You still have a positive number of dead people ffs!

Edited by AJL308 on Thursday 16th August 13:38

[anonymous-user]

Jonesy23 said:

The point is that you end up dead because your organs are removed. They don't remove your organs because you're dead.

So if you weren't a donor maybe you'd stay alive.

People being kept alive artificially have their life support systems switched off, at which point the oxygen in their blood will stop and you are dead and the process of organ deterioration starts. You are dead prior to removing your organs. People are removed from the ventilator when they no longer have any brain stem function.

People don't die because the organs are removed, they die because the life support systems are switched off and the body cant flow oxygen without them, before that happens they are brain dead.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/brain-death/