Should donating organs by compulsory?

Should organ donation be compulsory?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Undecided

  • Who am I to say what is right here?

Results are only viewable after voting.
Rhisiart

Rhisiart

Registered
Heaven forbid that anyone of us were to meet an timely death. But if the worst was to happen, our organs may allow others with terminal disease to live longer.

I am talking about presumed consent here (doctors will automatically remove your organs in the event of death, unless you carry a card to say you don't want this).

In the UK, this is becoming a big issue as transplant organs are rare. The British opt in system, i.e. carrying a donor card to say you want to donate your organs, doesn't seem to be working.

I understand in some countries they have have an opt out system, i.e. carrying a donor card to say you do not want to donate your organs, which makes far more organs available.

Any thoughts my fellow macaficionados?
 
rhisiart said:
In the UK, this is becoming a big issue as transplant organs are rare. The British opt in system, i.e. carrying a donor card to say you want to donate your organs, doesn't seem to be working.
Click to expand...
Letting people sell their organs, as part of a bequeath, would probably solve this problem.
 
I'd say organ donation should not be compulsory. While it is great when people choose to donate organs, there will be those who object (on the grounds of religion or other beliefs, for instance). Those people should not be compelled, against their beliefs, in my view.

In more general terms, and at risk of digressing somewhat, I suppose one could draw parallels with charity. Should one be compelled to donate to charity? If so, how would the charities be selected, how much should be donated, etc.? I think it is best to let people make acts of kindness, rather than try to force them, under which circumstances, it is no longer an act of kindness but a demand from the State (and people might become more reluctant to be charitable).
 
Italy was at some point trying to make a law to make everyone by default an organ donor if they didn't opt out .. at least it was in the media some years ago.

I think it should be voluntary.

For the cost of one kidney / liver / heart etc transplant, hundreds of people who otherwise are starving to death, could be kept alive...
 
Part of me thinks that yes, it's only sensible. Let people opt out if they want to, but why should it not be the norm?

But another part of me is so cynical and distrusting of the medical business that I think people with desirable organs would be made more likely to die in any number of unprovable ways if consent were implicit. Hospitals already treat people like pieces of meat. I hate to think what would happen if they generally had something to gain from their patients' deaths.
 
Mikuro said:
But another part of me is so cynical and distrusting of the medical business that I think people with desirable organs would be made more likely to die in any number of unprovable ways if consent were implicit. Hospitals already treat people like pieces of meat. I hate to think what would happen if they generally had something to gain from their patients' deaths.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know what you mean. A friend of a friend, who works in the medical profession, said he had the same concerns...
 
I'm not that paranoid. I'd go for an opt-_out_ strategy, i.e. anyone is automatically an organ-donor, but if your illogical faith (i.e. religion or similar thing) calls for an "out", you can get a non-donor card or something like that. Before they cut you open and start dealing your organs around, officials would, of course, have to make sure you're not on a non-donor list.

Most people I've talked about this in recent days (obviously spurred by that TV show about it) had very similar things to say:

1. I'm not sure I'd want another person's organ(s). (My answer to this is: If you're dying, you might get sure quickly.)
2. I haven't really thought about it, but yes people should have my organs if I die and they're still of some use.

The important part: They haven't really thought about it but wouldn't mind giving organs. That means that an opt-out strategy is called for. In my book.
 
A similar poll in the British Medical Journal (yes, I can crib at the best of times) has most respondents supporting an Opt Out, i.e. your organs may be taken unless, as Fryke says, you carry a non-donor card.

Most of these respondents are doctors and other health professionals. Perhaps this explains why they favour the Opt Out system. Either they are out to exploit innocent victims (I think not), or they see the anguish in seriously ill patients awaiting new organs.
 
fryke said:
I'm not that paranoid.
Click to expand...
What? As in you don't listen to what someone inside the medical profession has hinted might well go on?

The person did not say the hospital would deliberately let someone die if they could save them. What they did hint at was that if they have to make a choice of who to save when things are tight, and know one person is a donor and the other isn't, they would put the organ donor lower on the priority list than the non-organ-donor. I don't know how true this is, and it may vary from establishment to establishment, but if an "insider" basically said it, who am I to argue?

A way round that, whether only a fear or whether it actually goes on, is to ensure medical staff only find out who is a donor and who is not after a patient's death.

fryke said:
...but if your illogical faith (i.e. religion or similar thing)
Click to expand...
This is not helpful. Less of the inflammatory remarks, please. :rolleyes:

(This could open a whole new debate about the reasoning behind everyone's beliefs, atheists and thesists alike, and we don't need to go there...)

I might not agree with people who believe they need to keep the body whole after death, for whatever reason, but I won't be derogatory about those beliefs.
 
Sound of a bell ringing
Mr Brown: Yes ?
Man 1: Hello. Can we have your liver ?
Mr Brown: What ?
Man 1: Your liver. It's a glandular organ in your abdomen. You know, it's a reddish-brown, sort of --
Mr Brown: Yeah, yeah, I know what it is, but I'm using it.
Eric: Come on, sir. Don't muck us about.
Eric takes a card from Mr Brown's pocket
Man 1: What's this, then ?
Mr Brown: A liver donor's card.
Man 1: Need we say more ? No.
Mr Brown: Listen, I can't give it to you now. It says, "in the event of death."
Man 1: No one has ever had their liver taken out by us and survived.



... don't be paranoid ...
 
On a New York State drivers license you check a little box on the back saying:"I hereby make an anatomical gift to be effective upon my death"
A. Any needed organ parts
B. The following body part(s)...see below, etc. Signature, witness, date etc.

I signed, of course.

Only the liver may be a wee bit tired. Hic.
 
Reed, would you really want that when you die, some people will cut you up and take you apart for the different organs they need?
 
sure, why not if it can save the life of somebody else. They are going to perform an autopsy anyway.
 
Ferdinand: Would you, being dead and all that, really still care? I mean: Even *if* you believe in a surviving soul, doesn't that exact thought mean that you no longer need your body-parts? AFAIK, most religions nowadays don't believe in coming back to the same old body for standard-believers (only son of gods etc.). So in my opinion, ther are two simple options:

1.) You don't believe in an afterlife and this life here is the one we lead, after that, you're gone. Then you (gone) don't really need those organs anymore. You can still wrap things up and make a decent body for a funeral service, btw., which is a thing for those who live on.

2.) You do believe in a spiritual afterlife, where the soul or ghost or whatever is freed of those earthly boundaries. Which means you don't really need those organs anymore. You can still wrap things up and make a decent body for a funeral service, btw., which is a thing for those who live on.

bbloke: Sorry that I mention both theistic and atheistic "options" here. I don't mean to push the thread to that discussion. It just seems strange to me that those who believe in spiritual/religious things seem to cling to their dead bodies _more_ than those who think that this bodily existence is all we really have. Plus: I think it shouldn't even matter whether you believe or not - _unless_ you truly believe you still need your dead body after death.
 
If the doctors and hospital want to split their fee with me, prior to my death, they can have anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top