Organ donation.
Discussion
Dont Panic said:
Why so much slating going on? I didnt start this thread to discuss the merits of organ donation, asset grabs or to have it jacked by insults.
Im fine with organ donation ,they can yank my willy off if they want and tape it to a stick if it pleases.
Theres just something not right about presuming consent when its not been asked, I never saw any consultation, as I said it implies ownership. Thin end of a wedge to my mind.
Semantics. They could just as easily say we don't give a fIm fine with organ donation ,they can yank my willy off if they want and tape it to a stick if it pleases.
Theres just something not right about presuming consent when its not been asked, I never saw any consultation, as I said it implies ownership. Thin end of a wedge to my mind.
k, we're taking it. If you don't want us to then sign the form and we won't and the effect would be the same. Think of it like inheritance tax you can 100% opt out of if you want.It's a ridiculous argument because no one would object if they could opt out of council tax. That's not taken on a basis of "presumed consent".
Agammemnon said:
Digga said:
I think most would far prefer to have to opt out, rather than opt in. In a modern, unsupersitious society, it's common sense.
I would prefer freedom of choice.I don't see it as common sense, I see it as inflicting one's views (however laudable) on others.
Edited by Agammemnon on Tuesday 25th February 16:18
Besides, you cannot choose now what happens to you in any legally meaningful way. Opting out is the first legally binding direction you can give about your body after death. It has never been possible before.
AJL308 said:
TorqueVR said:
My dad died some years ago after a brain haemorrhage on a Saturday evening and spent the last three days unconscious on a ventilator. My mum and brother were quite shocked when I suggested organ donation on the Sunday, but having slept on it they both agreed on the Monday that it was good idea. Dad passed away on the Tuesday and the hospital took is corneas, kidneys, liver and one or other bits (can't remember which). Within a few days we were informed that all the parts had been used and a couple of months later the hospital forwarded a letter from the recipient of a kidney (with the name and address redacted). He was a 35 year old married man with a three year old and another on the way, and was facing certain death without a transplant and it still chokes me up. Mum had suffered from kidney issues for years and later that same year her name came up and she ha a transplant, which to her 100% justified giving consent to donate dad's organs. So, a young man was given a new lease of life and his his wife had a husband and his two kids had a father, and then my mum later another 16 years before she died.
Donation is an absolute no-brainer, but if you don't want to give then don't expect to receive and let someone else benefit.
This^^^Donation is an absolute no-brainer, but if you don't want to give then don't expect to receive and let someone else benefit.
I'm surprised there are so many more pages after this, to be honest.
I have been on the donor register for years and would be happy to give my organs to anyone who needs them if I die.
I understand some people think all it will mean is that dr's will not try to save them as they can help more people if they die, which is clearly utter rot and is a lack of eduction
I am in the camp that says anyone who opts out is no longer allowed to have a donated organ and that should be made clear to all.
My Daughter is a Dr and has seen where people who have made a choice to donate when alive have had their wish ignored by family afterwards.
I have read that certain religions, Jehovas witness for example do not donate, due to other peoples blood running through what is no longer of use to them, but again some will accept an organ if no blood is used in the transplant.
It is complicated and I do feel that it is important that it is openly discussed. In schools we are telling kids about transgender matters and also that they will die if the climate is not changed, yet I have never been made aware that this subject is discussed. ( I hope I am wrong on this)
I understand some people think all it will mean is that dr's will not try to save them as they can help more people if they die, which is clearly utter rot and is a lack of eduction
I am in the camp that says anyone who opts out is no longer allowed to have a donated organ and that should be made clear to all.
My Daughter is a Dr and has seen where people who have made a choice to donate when alive have had their wish ignored by family afterwards.
I have read that certain religions, Jehovas witness for example do not donate, due to other peoples blood running through what is no longer of use to them, but again some will accept an organ if no blood is used in the transplant.
It is complicated and I do feel that it is important that it is openly discussed. In schools we are telling kids about transgender matters and also that they will die if the climate is not changed, yet I have never been made aware that this subject is discussed. ( I hope I am wrong on this)
gregs656 said:
Not to me. You are dead.
Until you're nothttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/US/brain-dead-m...
Agammemnon said:
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".The reason for the change is obvious, there will be a huge number of people that like the idea of donating but are too lazy/forgetful to do anything about it.
Agammemnon said:
Randy Winkman said:
Exactly. Agemmemnon can still either say "yes" or say "no". Since Agemmemnon would like to donate, my suggestion is that he makes use of this choice and stay opted-in. It's even easier than opting out. A win-win.
I'm totally happy to agree to donate- how do I express to the government my displeasure at their presumption?
would help? Randy Winkman said:
Agammemnon said:
Randy Winkman said:
Exactly. Agemmemnon can still either say "yes" or say "no". Since Agemmemnon would like to donate, my suggestion is that he makes use of this choice and stay opted-in. It's even easier than opting out. A win-win.
I'm totally happy to agree to donate- how do I express to the government my displeasure at their presumption?Oakey said:
Texas, that well know bit of Britain between wales and East Anglia. Assumed consent usually results in less donors (see results in other countries) as people who "don't care" enough to opt in are forced to opt out eg they go from a possible (not opted in doesn't preclude Doctors etc discussing it with relatives) to a definite no. Also people who don't like Big Brother bossing them around will probably opt out vs not actually that bothered enough to opt in etc etc.
Amazed they went for it albeit imho just another political "nod" vs what actually gives the best result.
TX.
Amazed they went for it albeit imho just another political "nod" vs what actually gives the best result.
TX.
spaximus said:
I have been on the donor register for years and would be happy to give my organs to anyone who needs them if I die.
I understand some people think all it will mean is that dr's will not try to save them as they can help more people if they die, which is clearly utter rot and is a lack of eduction
I am in the camp that says anyone who opts out is no longer allowed to have a donated organ and that should be made clear to all.
My Daughter is a Dr and has seen where people who have made a choice to donate when alive have had their wish ignored by family afterwards.
I have read that certain religions, Jehovas witness for example do not donate, due to other peoples blood running through what is no longer of use to them, but again some will accept an organ if no blood is used in the transplant.
It is complicated and I do feel that it is important that it is openly discussed. In schools we are telling kids about transgender matters and also that they will die if the climate is not changed, yet I have never been made aware that this subject is discussed. ( I hope I am wrong on this)
Why stop there though? Smokers? Brought it on themselves after all so let them just go, no help at all. Obese people? Same yeah; all those years of over eating is a massive strain on the NHS, no help for them. Drinkers? Liver problems and all that, no help for you either.I understand some people think all it will mean is that dr's will not try to save them as they can help more people if they die, which is clearly utter rot and is a lack of eduction
I am in the camp that says anyone who opts out is no longer allowed to have a donated organ and that should be made clear to all.
My Daughter is a Dr and has seen where people who have made a choice to donate when alive have had their wish ignored by family afterwards.
I have read that certain religions, Jehovas witness for example do not donate, due to other peoples blood running through what is no longer of use to them, but again some will accept an organ if no blood is used in the transplant.
It is complicated and I do feel that it is important that it is openly discussed. In schools we are telling kids about transgender matters and also that they will die if the climate is not changed, yet I have never been made aware that this subject is discussed. ( I hope I am wrong on this)
TX.
Stay in Bed Instead said:
Stop trying to shame people who do not wish to donate.
My first post on this thread, not shaming anyone, what you want to do is entirely up to you. Can't understand why there is this massive discussion about it though! The normal procedure when you move house is to register with the local council. That puts you on the public electoral roll automatically unless you opt out by ticking a box. Takes all of 1 second.
If you want to opt out of this, its a similar thing. Just do it - it's not difficult.
Terminator X said:
Assumed consent usually results in less donors (see results in other countries) as people who "don't care" enough to opt in are forced to opt out eg they go from a possible (not opted in doesn't preclude Doctors etc discussing it with relatives) to a definite no. Also people who don't like Big Brother bossing them around will probably opt out vs not actually that bothered enough to opt in etc etc.
Amazed they went for it albeit imho just another political "nod" vs what actually gives the best result.
TX.
Given that they don't expect it to increase the number of transplants, it's really only a rather unpleasant authoritarian socialist statement. Stalin would be proud. Amazed they went for it albeit imho just another political "nod" vs what actually gives the best result.
TX.
It wouldn't apply to him, of course.
Terminator X said:
spaximus said:
I have been on the donor register for years and would be happy to give my organs to anyone who needs them if I die.
I understand some people think all it will mean is that dr's will not try to save them as they can help more people if they die, which is clearly utter rot and is a lack of eduction
I am in the camp that says anyone who opts out is no longer allowed to have a donated organ and that should be made clear to all.
My Daughter is a Dr and has seen where people who have made a choice to donate when alive have had their wish ignored by family afterwards.
I have read that certain religions, Jehovas witness for example do not donate, due to other peoples blood running through what is no longer of use to them, but again some will accept an organ if no blood is used in the transplant.
It is complicated and I do feel that it is important that it is openly discussed. In schools we are telling kids about transgender matters and also that they will die if the climate is not changed, yet I have never been made aware that this subject is discussed. ( I hope I am wrong on this)
Why stop there though? Smokers? Brought it on themselves after all so let them just go, no help at all. Obese people? Same yeah; all those years of over eating is a massive strain on the NHS, no help for them. Drinkers? Liver problems and all that, no help for you either.I understand some people think all it will mean is that dr's will not try to save them as they can help more people if they die, which is clearly utter rot and is a lack of eduction
I am in the camp that says anyone who opts out is no longer allowed to have a donated organ and that should be made clear to all.
My Daughter is a Dr and has seen where people who have made a choice to donate when alive have had their wish ignored by family afterwards.
I have read that certain religions, Jehovas witness for example do not donate, due to other peoples blood running through what is no longer of use to them, but again some will accept an organ if no blood is used in the transplant.
It is complicated and I do feel that it is important that it is openly discussed. In schools we are telling kids about transgender matters and also that they will die if the climate is not changed, yet I have never been made aware that this subject is discussed. ( I hope I am wrong on this)
TX.
Seems like a decent balance to me. Opt out and you can't have a transplant. Cause your own organs to fail and you can have whatever is left after the people who couldn't help needing a transplant.
Perhaps if there's anything left after that, the opt-out'ers can have those
amusingduck said:
Wouldn't those smokers/obese/drinkers find themselves rather near the bottom of the transplant list if they hadn't addressed the reasons they need one?
Seems like a decent balance to me. Opt out and you can't have a transplant. Cause your own organs to fail and you can have whatever is left after the people who couldn't help needing a transplant.
Perhaps if there's anything left after that, the opt-out'ers can have those
All this does is confirm that the desire to make "donation" compulsory by default is not a philanthropic notion but simply a narcissistic one. Seems like a decent balance to me. Opt out and you can't have a transplant. Cause your own organs to fail and you can have whatever is left after the people who couldn't help needing a transplant.
Perhaps if there's anything left after that, the opt-out'ers can have those
Murph7355 said:
Randy Winkman said:
Agammemnon said:
Randy Winkman said:
Exactly. Agemmemnon can still either say "yes" or say "no". Since Agemmemnon would like to donate, my suggestion is that he makes use of this choice and stay opted-in. It's even easier than opting out. A win-win.
I'm totally happy to agree to donate- how do I express to the government my displeasure at their presumption?I have always felt that organs should not be available to those who have opted out if donating their own organs.
You could arguably extend this principle to blood donation: no blood for you unless you have contributed in the past. Though this is a harder one due to restrictions of who can actually donate blood (and who we would want to).
Plus I would not expect medics to watch someone bleed to death "just because",so in practice it's a rubbish idea.
If someone is unhappy with the government's presumption to take your organs, then why not just write a letter to your MP? This should help get things off your chest (though it won't stop things getting out of your chest unless you opt out).
Conflating this issue with tax seems a bit ultra republican to me. Sure, opt out of taxes, but opt out of receiving any, and I mean every * benefit of publicly provided services.
This might suit the odd off-gridder in the western isles (who probably won't be paying any taxes anyway) but I think would be a situation most people find unpleasant after a few days.
You could arguably extend this principle to blood donation: no blood for you unless you have contributed in the past. Though this is a harder one due to restrictions of who can actually donate blood (and who we would want to).
Plus I would not expect medics to watch someone bleed to death "just because",so in practice it's a rubbish idea.
If someone is unhappy with the government's presumption to take your organs, then why not just write a letter to your MP? This should help get things off your chest (though it won't stop things getting out of your chest unless you opt out).
Conflating this issue with tax seems a bit ultra republican to me. Sure, opt out of taxes, but opt out of receiving any, and I mean every * benefit of publicly provided services.
This might suit the odd off-gridder in the western isles (who probably won't be paying any taxes anyway) but I think would be a situation most people find unpleasant after a few days.
- ps I know it's impossible to opt uk residents out of say, our nuclear deterrent, which is if course why some things are provided publicly in the first place
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff