Organ donation.
Discussion
Stay in Bed Instead said:
Stop trying to shame people who do not wish to donate.
I don't think anyone is trying to do that.If someone doesn't want to donate their organs that's a matter for them.
What I find a little odd and I suspect others do is when people say (to paraphrase) "Yes I fully support organ donation and I would be happy to donate mine but because the Government are making it so I have to opt out I won't donate my organs because that will teach the Government a powerful lesson".
I don't think it's teaching the Government a lesson when they plough on anyway and people die when they don't get organs people are apparently "happy" to donate.
Can't say I've a lot of time for that position.
Stay in Bed Instead said:
Blackpuddin said:
I feat that your logic is wasted here. The question I would ask of those who are contesting this is would they actually donate their organs if they got their wish and were asked? Is it just this need to be asked that is bothering them, or is the truth that they really want to refuse to donate but don't want to be 'exposed' as such?
Stop trying to shame people who do not wish to donate.He’s trying to understand why some are making such a song and dance about it.
It’s a valid point made by another poster, if you opt out should you opt out of getting a transplant if you need one in the future ?
I don’t think that’s unreasonable ?
Stay in Bed Instead said:
Blackpuddin said:
I feat that your logic is wasted here. The question I would ask of those who are contesting this is would they actually donate their organs if they got their wish and were asked? Is it just this need to be asked that is bothering them, or is the truth that they really want to refuse to donate but don't want to be 'exposed' as such?
Stop trying to shame people who do not wish to donate.Stay in Bed Instead said:
I am failing to see any morality in commandeering someones body parts because they haven't expressly refused you permission.
How do you think this would affect you when dead? I find it bizarre that people object to donation on anything but religious grounds (and tbf religious views are bizarre by default).Cold said:
It's a valid question. If it really was such a popular idea then they wouldn't have to make it compulsory.
Donation should be made attractive and not mandatory by default.
Donation is attractive, at least to those the possess some semblance of morality; you are saving other peoples lives after your death. There is absolutely zero downside to you. Would you also need to be coerced into accepting someone else's donated organs if you needed them to live?Donation should be made attractive and not mandatory by default.
Blackpuddin said:
That wasn't my intention, but if people need to be shamed into donating then that is shameful in itself. Deciding not to donate on the statistically microscopically small chance of you doing a Lazarus on the operating table is IMO a terrible decision. That's my view. You're entitled to yours of course. I personally find it indefensible. And I do wonder what your position would be on this if you were depending on an organ donation to survive. I'd like to think that you would gracefully decline.
Yet you have repeatedly vilified those that do not wish to donate.Blackpuddin said:
The idea that the Govt is doing this to somehow own your organs is utter drivel. The person who will actually own one of more of them is someone who would almost certainly otherwise die. Denying them that chance is some kind of new low point in selfishness. Is your warped sense of entitlement to a decision that shouldn't even be a decision really worth killing someone for?
Blackpuddin said:
That was an analogy. Conflation, as I'm sure you're aware, is quite different.
It's a pity that your thinking on the core topic is so shallow. The bigger shame is that you are not alone. As a direct result of such lazy thinking thousands of people are suffering or dying needlessly.
It's a pity that your thinking on the core topic is so shallow. The bigger shame is that you are not alone. As a direct result of such lazy thinking thousands of people are suffering or dying needlessly.
Blackpuddin said:
I can imagine the Googling that went into digging that story up. OK then, you're right, let's give selfish dead folk the option to keep themselves intact just in case they might spark back up into life.
LimSlip said:
Cold said:
It's a valid question. If it really was such a popular idea then they wouldn't have to make it compulsory.
Donation should be made attractive and not mandatory by default.
Donation is attractive, at least to those the possess some semblance of morality; you are saving other peoples lives after your death. There is absolutely zero downside to you. Would you also need to be coerced into accepting someone else's donated organs if you needed them to live?Donation should be made attractive and not mandatory by default.
Why does no one want to donate?
hstewie said:
mikeiow said:
& you too?
I've clearly stated that I opted in as a donor when such was voluntary. Read the thread.mikeiow said:
The Government has effectively asked you by making this the default and giving you the choice to opt out.
That's a very long way from asking. Asking is where they say "may I?" as opposed to "I'm doing it".mikeiow said:
Did you expect the PM to knock on all our doors to ask individually?
No- I expected them to respect people's decisions and not change the system to one where they presume to have their wish as a default.I’d personally take it a step further and offer ‘free’ assisted suicide to anyone wanting to end their life and donate organs.
I’d also give long sentence prisoners the option upon sentencing to offer their bodies to those more in need.
I can’t give blood or donate my organs for medical reasons, but would jump at the chance of either if I were allowed.
I’d also give long sentence prisoners the option upon sentencing to offer their bodies to those more in need.
I can’t give blood or donate my organs for medical reasons, but would jump at the chance of either if I were allowed.
Agammemnon said:
I accept every word of that.
Nevertheless, anyone trying to argue from a "moral" viewpoint is ignoring the morality of freedom of the individual in favour of tyranny of the majority.
My position will remain that they have the ability to ask me nicely & should either do so or accept me making an uncoerced decision or FRO.
The government’s decision is not moral, but practical. If freedom of the individual is a moral position, then nothing in the legislation contradicts that. You still have the freedom not to allow your organs to be used. Nevertheless, anyone trying to argue from a "moral" viewpoint is ignoring the morality of freedom of the individual in favour of tyranny of the majority.
My position will remain that they have the ability to ask me nicely & should either do so or accept me making an uncoerced decision or FRO.
It is your right to opt out, otherwise it would be coercion. The argument seems to focus on your motive not only to refuse permission but to justify it beyond the simple use of a right. Just because you weren’t asked nicely seems a little thin. It is not a moral position.
You are not striking a stand against the government with your decision. It doesn’t give a damn. It won’t even know your reason for opting out. It is an empty gesture. Your only reason for doing so would seem to be self-satisfaction. Despite what my gran said, there’s nothing wrong with that.
Jesus wept, sometimes I think I get hung up on issues of liberty in today's questionable landscape that the herd seem joyfully oblivious too but gee thanks for the reset.
Oh and its great news, been a reg donor ever since, if any bits of me can bring joy to anyone when I'm done with them knock yourselves out.
Oh and its great news, been a reg donor ever since, if any bits of me can bring joy to anyone when I'm done with them knock yourselves out.
Agammemnon said:
No- I expected them to respect people's decisions and not change the system to one where they presume to have their wish as a default.
You come across as a child that would argue against going to DisneyLand because you weren't asked if you wanted to go before the tickets were booked, even though you really wanted to go.That is a whole new level of precious.
You do realise that there are lots of things that are presumed by the government for the good of society. For example, do you think it is wrong for the government to take 20/40/more %age of your salary without asking your permission first?
Your argument would be valid if there wasn't an opt out. As there is an opt out your argument is little more than childish whining. And as freedom of choice is so important to you, you are free to vote in the next general election for a party that promises to reverse this decision...
Evoluzione said:
Going by my recent experience the system is flawed anyhow, it takes so long (over 24hrs) to find the correct recipient that the donor and organs are of no use.
This is all about the NHS and it's statistics. The proportion of organ donors was low, and the NHS doesn't like it when stats make it look poor. They thought about ways to encourage people to sign up but in the end decided it was easier to reclassify everyone as "parts". The "consultation" did raise one ironic effect - the people who will think about the issue, realize there is a principle involved, and fill in a form to opt out are likely to be the exact same people who previously thought about it and filled in the form to opt in. But the stats also made it clear that there are far fewer of them. So, onward with mininal publicity and "Bingo! World Class organ donor statistics!" But probably no more actual organ donation.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff