Organs to be taken without consent

[rayofreason]

Source: The Telegraph

Gordon Brown has thrown his weight behind a move to allow hospitals to take organs from dead patients without explicit consent.

Writing in The Sunday Telegraph, the Prime Minister says that such a facility would save thousands of lives and that he hopes such a system can start this year.

The proposals would mean consent for organ donation after death would be automatically presumed, unless individuals had opted out of the national register or family members objected.

But patients' groups said that they were "totally opposed" to Mr Brown's plan, saying that it would take away patients' rights over their own bodies.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/13/norgans113.xml

---

Soon you won't even have to be dead.

[Joanne98]

1. The rich need things!!!!!!!!

:sarcasm:

[Liberal Veteran]

2. I don't have a problem with an "opt out" system.

They are welcome to any part of my body when I done with it.

[Brrrp]

137. This would reduce the brisk trade in third world body parts. nt

[Hellenic_Pagan]

140. By starting a brisk trade in US and UK body parts. Yay. Progress! n/t

[Brrrp]

365. No, they'd be free. nt

[LiberalFighter]

3. How many will die that didn't need to die because their organs were more important than them?

[fascisthunter]

5. How Many are Wealthy Enough to Afford Them?

That's how many....

[daleo]

11. This is Britain

They have national health care.

[fascisthunter]

13. but of course... my mistake

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. I don't understand what you mean

Bear in mind this is a British story.

[fascisthunter]

14. yup... I've Been Reminded

wasn't thinking...

[havocmom]

17. Yep, it happens.

If you are fairly young & healthy, might wanna opt out so you will get medical care you should. I know a few cases where young, healthy accident victims had their kin pressured to 'pull the plug' but the patients recovered, even after doctors assured family there 'was no hope'.

They always SAY transplants will save thousands of lives, and I believe them. What they don't say is transplants make them HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars. Sorry, but corporate hospitals? In THIS America? Hell yes it's about the bucks.

[nodehopper]

71. yes but the story is about the UK.

[havocmom]

74. Money over lives of less well heeled is NOT just an American thing

Global. Think global. Those that's gots are global and there is never enough.

[superconnected]

177. The UK has the upper crust and the lower crust too only it's worse it's the

emphasis on past royalty in linage like americans rarely have.

How can anyone trust a place with actual "Royalty" not to give the organ preference to the upper class?

I'm amazed you guys are saying it's UK like it makes any difference. Human nature is human nature.

[muriel_volestrangler]

189. Because paying for organs is illegal in the UK

Because the UK has a National Health Service, which doesn't use the ability to pay as the basis for treatment.

[superconnected]

HAHAHAHHAHA rolf rofl

And paying for organs ISN'T illegal in the usa?

National health care doesn't help the terminally ill when there are only so many organs. Who gets the organs will ultimately go to the wealthy first, just as it does in america. Oregon and California hospitals are under investigation for this right now, both have apologized for giving organs to people from out of the country who flew in for them and the hosipals ignored the organ doner list. The Oregon hospital admitted it was a wealthy arab who got the organ.

The UK is not less susceptible to abuse. Free health care doesn't factor in when there's a wealthy family willing to buy the liver that the poor family was in line for. Doctors are not Saints. And speaking of Saints, some of the Saints were known for robbery.

[muriel_volestrangler]

201. So your argument is "one law making a bad outcome illegal isn't enough -

- we need a second law to make both the bad outcome and a good outcome illegal - that way we can prosecute someone twice for the bad act, and never mind hurting the people who'd benefit from the good act"?

"Who gets the organs will ultimately go to the wealthy first"

No. That isn't how it works. The NHS doesn't take fees from people for treatment, so the wealthy can't throw their money around. The people who work in the NHS are honourable.

[superconnected]

202. Incredible naivety...

The point is, the money is ALWAYS under the table.

Okay, go back to your bubble. Don't worry your head about how crimes are commited.

The rest of us will continue to be leary when ever there's an asset that can gather hundreds of thousands on the table.

[muriel_volestrangler]

207. As the relative of an NHS doctor

I think I know more about the ethics of them than you do. You are projecting the problems of the US system (you're the one who mentioned a company in your own story - see, in the British system, there aren't any companies) onto the UK.

The NHS 'bubble' means that accountants and profits aren't involved. I may as well say "keep your private health care system out of our bubble" - in which case, you should ignore this story. It's not your concern.

[Pale Blue Dot]

19. Exactly. nt

[Hellenic_Pagan]

141. I'm betting a SHITLOAD of Medicaid, Medicare and unisured ppl. n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

191. Of which the UK has none, in any category (nt)

[Hellenic_Pagan]

272. So the UK has already killed all its poor?

Wow. This "organ donation" thing worked quicker than i feared it would.

[muriel_volestrangler]

279. Ha-ha.

We don't have Medicare, we don't have Medicaid, and all residents are covered by the National Health Service (tourists wouldn't get a transplant on the NHS, it's true).

The "the rich will get the organs" argument is a red herring - it doesn't happen now, with a small supply, and increasing the potential supply of organs will mean it's less likely that the rich will get them in preference - basic economics. People don't pay for something that's abundant.

[JerseygirlCT]

149. This argument has been used for our donor designation

program, too.

I haven't heard of anyone knocked off because they checked "yes" on their card, have you?

[superconnected]

182. Actually they tried to knock off my uncle at Everett General Hospital

in 1998 because he had checked organ doner. They backed off and quit insisting we pull the plug when we told them he had Hepatitis C. They made a few phone calls and then decided to stop asking us to pull the plug and so he could recover. Otherwise he would have been dead by the pressure they put on us to pull the plug. He was on life support. They wanted the plug pulled - the hopitals and their local organdoner people residing there and representing a different company, before they were positive he was even having a brain hemorage - their feelings were, if it is, he won't live(apparently why attempt to save him and they tried to talk us out of it), pull the plug and harvest. He was in his early 40's at the time.

[John Gauger]

294. Why did they do that?

Why did they value one patient over another? What is their motivation in letting one patient die so another can live?

[JeanGrey]

297. Now, now, I'm sorry, but that just can't be right! I mean, read

on down about how good doctors are at telling us when there is no hope. Obviously, your Uncle needed his plug pulled and I'm sure he's lived the rest of his life curled up in a ball since then, right?

[fascisthunter]

4. Nothing is Yours anymore... welcome to the 'Matrix' (nt)

[LiberalFighter]

6. I wouldn't trust EMT's or the doctors

[Hellenic_Pagan]

136. Yeah,

I wonder how many patients coming into trauma centers will just be "put aside" to die so that their "valuable organs" can be used to "save lives".

This is seriously fucked up.

[LiberalFighter]

7. Will Brown be the first to donate all his organs immediately?

[baldguy]

8. .

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0211933/

[krkaufman]

50. This one seems more apropos

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077355/

[originalpckelly]

9. Holy crap.

[goforit]

10. OMG!!!!...........That is just not right.

[tavalon]

15. I know I'm supposed to be outraged, but I'm just not

Opt out if the idea of your organs going to save someone else when you're beyond saving. Works for me.

[JeanGrey]

31. It's the "beyond saving" thing that is getting us.

A lot of doctors don't know "beyond saving". And how many will be nudged over for those organs?
Sorry. Not a good idea.

[tavalon]

82. Well, I'm in healthcare and I can tell you it's pretty fucked up

but people get pretty reverential around dying people and their organs and I don't think the lack of consent from one party will stop the whole ethics committee from meeting and the three independent doctors examining and deciding that it's time to pull the plug and the organs. I've never seen a single organ donor helped to the other side any quicker for their organs.

[JeanGrey]

83. Maybe you haven't that doesn't mean it won't happen.

Look at China. This is a slippery slope and I'm against it. I'm an organ donor myself but no one should be able to just "take" your organs.

Besides, three doctors aren't always right. If I had money for everytime a "doctor" told me that my mother wouldn't live out the night I'd be independently wealthy. It got to the point that I would smile at them when they said it (talk about strange looks).

[Hellenic_Pagan]

142. Especially since many docs already have a god complex!!! n/t

[JerseygirlCT]

147. I have to say I think I agree

I never really understood people who didn't sign on for becoming a donor in the first place. It's not as if I'm going to be using those organs once I'm gone, you know?

From what I read, this is an "opt-out" instead of "opt-in", which doesn't mean someone can't opt out if there's some reason they won't donate.

I've often wondered about doing it this way.

[angrycarpenter]

16. Did you ever see "coma"?

just sayin'

[Pale Blue Dot]

18. Sorry, but I agree with this.

If someone is dead, they're dead. Their organs are of no use to themselves or their family. Only dogma is standing in the way of saving the lives of people who need those organs.

I am an organ donor, proudly. I wish that something like this would, or could, be enacted in the U.S.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JBoy]

35. Give me a break.

How is it you would expect someone to enforce your wish to exclude "republicans" as potential recipients? Do you want patients to declare their political affiliation? And I guess you'll never be able to get a blood transfusion, because it may have come from a republican...

And this website you're looking for - for "true believers". True believers in what? Half-baked ideas?

Nice try.

[Skittles]

95. yes

I have donated 26 gallons of blood products and I don't care who receives them, even repukes whom I detest

[enlightenment]

42. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out, darlin'! nt

[AzDar]

29. Sooooo, once I die...my body no longer belongs TO ME? Huh.

This is going to be BIG in necrophilia circles....

[Pale Blue Dot]

40. Why would it belong to you? You won't EXIST anymore!

What possible claim could you make on that dead, empty shell and its organs, which could keep an actual, living, breathing person alive?

[AzDar]

43. How far are you willing to extrapolate that logic? Stuff me and sell

me to a mueseum...hey, if it benefits society, why not?
Prop up the ol' corpse and let the necros have at it? Why not? THEY need my body (or shell, or husk, or whatever) more than I, right?

The disposition of MY mortal remains are for ME to determine. Get it?
You'll get the rights to my cold dead hands, when you pry them from my cold, dead hands....no, wait.
:rofl:

[Pale Blue Dot]

45. Do you know what a straw man is?

Because you've just illustrated the concept.

I'm not talking about donating to a museum, which would not keep anyone alive.

I'm not talking about necrophilia, which last time I checked was illegal.

But my point remains: if you're dead, you're dead; you won't know or care what happens to your body. According to law cited in the OP, if you REALLY want to be selfish, you could opt out. But otherwise, living, breathing lives should be saved.

[AzDar]

46. Yes, I do. And I'm keeping him away from YOU, 'cause you'll try to

make off with his organs.

[northzax]

198. well, I'd feel more sympathy

if we didn't put bodies on display all the time.

[NashVegas]

56. What Right Do You Have to Demand How Others Provide Your Body With Spare Parts?

The drive to mandate organ donation is just another step in the process of dehumanization our race is being subjected to, for the benefit of corporations and other humans who believe themselves entitled to control their mortal nature.

It's not a gift anymore, it's a demand, and I refuse because I want people to face the ridiculousness, bullying nature of their selfish demand, to grow up, and accept mortality as a natural process.

I make the claim on my empty shell and its organs because it's the one I was born with, and because it is not your place to decide how it will be disposed of unless I will it to you. It's that simple.

[Skittles]

90. IT'S NOT A DEMAND IF YOU CAN OPT OUT

come ON

[NashVegas]

102. Oh, Bull

Insisting on opt-out is the weasel's way of taking advantage of another's failure to be diligent. FinnFan's post on the subject are indeed, demanding the unvalued (in y'all's opinions) body parts of the deceased be handed over.

Then you have the economic demand, which treats the dead as commodity:

Bill Colovos, the attorney for the parents of the deceased children, is seeking class-action status for the case and said the class could include up to 7,000 families of children whose children who had corneas removed after they died. According to the Los Angeles Times, the coroner's office had sold thousands of corneas to a Los Angeles eye bank for $215 to $335 a pair before a new law was passed in 1998 requiring parental consent for donation.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0YUG/is_23_12/ai_n18614729

The people who demand the right to have their wishes for their remains to be respected aren't the ones who are engaging in illegal activities and bullying tactics.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

138. So, you trust buracracy and paperwork?

Come on...

Haven't you been listening to the health care crisis here in the US?

Haven't you heard how insurance companies have allowed people to die so that they didn't have to pay for their treatments? There have been many many stories in the newspaper (and even more that dont make it on the news) where people have been essentially killed by their HMOs PPOs or other insurance companies.

Do you really think that people won't be allowed to die so that their valuable organs can be used to treat paying customers? Have you not learned anything about "market forces" and the "if i can pay for it, it's mine" mentality of US health care? If a poor indigent undocumented worker with good organs but no money came into a hospital, do you think that people wouldnt consider letting them die so that they could harvest those organs and make a profit from the loss of a human life? You have more faith in the system than i do.

Also i wonder how long it would be before the "opt out" pages of certain people's medical records would be lost or misplaced? There are cases where medical records have been altered or faked after a patient died to cover the ass of staff and doctors, do you think it wouldnt happen so that people could get a heart or liver?

It is a demand. Saying you can "opt out" is a way for them to slide it by and make it SOUND like it's an option when it isnt.

[JeanGrey]

299. Absolutely. "Opt out" is a joke.

I wonder how those that feel this is ok would feel about harvesting organs from prisoners after the death penalty is applied?

[muriel_volestrangler]

98. "accept mortality as a natural process" - but you still need your organs after it?

Doesn't "accepting mortality as a natural process" mean realising that your organs are useless in a dead body? Or are you saying that seriously ill people should just accept their imminent death as a natural process, and quit looking for ways to get well again?

[NashVegas]

101. So Dying Is Now "Seriously Ill"

Just a little hiccup, thanks to organ donation. Nothing you, as a human being, should take seriously and try to be emotionally prepared for. If you want to get well again, well fine, but when that wish for control collides with others' human rights, I'm not buying in.

[muriel_volestrangler]

125. Wow, you really do think people shouldn't want organ donations

There aren't any 'human rights' here. If someone thinks their dead body should be thrown away, they still get the chance to say that, but since they're not human any more (being dead), this is not a human rights issue.

[NashVegas]

134. I Think People Shouldn't Demand Replacement Organs

I understand the want. I don't have too much problem at all with the want. The demand, I have some issues with that.


This is totally a human rights issue.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

387. Dont bother arguing with them

they think "you dont have rights" is a perfectly acceptable statement (see downthread)

I shared a Russian propaganda poster there, but it is so exemplory of what your opponent is saying here, ill post it here too.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

148. It IS a human rights issue. The living and dead are still HUMAN BEINGS. n/t

[superconnected]

179. egad. Being dead does not take away the fact that they are human, only

that were alive.

Human is determined by dna, dead or alive.

[muriel_volestrangler]

185. Rubbish. Once you're dead, you do not have human rights.

Remember, a foetus doesn't have human rights, though it does have DNA.

[superconnected]

197. You didn't say rights, you said "Human"

It is human, wether dead or alive. It's a genetic thing. All things are determined by their dna - a lamb is a lamb, dead or alive. A human doesn't become a rooster because it died. It's genetics stay the same.

[muriel_volestrangler]

203. No, a body *was* human.

A fertilised egg *will be* human, if the pregnancy goes to term. A live human *is* human.

If I said "how many humans are there?", would you say "well, there Julius Caesar, and there's Augustus Caesar, and there's William Shakespeare , and ..."? I think not.

[superconnected]

210. a body "was" human, beats biology.

It's genetically human after death. Human is determined by dna, nothing else.

[superconnected]

213. Human - homo sapien catologed

Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia

Phylum: Chordata

Class: Mammalia

Order: Primates

Family: Hominidae

Genus: Homo

Species: H. sapiens

Subspecies: H. s. sapiens

---------------------------

It doesn't matter if it's a dead human, it's still a human.

May I ask where you think it should be filed when it's dead? With the rocks perhaps, then of course it will need the properties of a geode. Anyway, this list doesn't get into dna which I could go find links for as the genome mapping process has covered humans.

[muriel_volestrangler]

217. Is a bit of your skin a human?

It has human DNA. It's dead, like a dead body. But it doesn't have human rights. Decaying bodies don't have human rights either.

[superconnected]

223. no dead bodies don't have rights but they're still human.

And yes a bit of my skin is considered human skin. It doesn't lose it's dna because I die.

I'm sorry but I expect this kind of conversation to take place with someone who didn't pass the 8th grade and doesn't know what a cell or a molecule is.

[muriel_volestrangler]

234. They're a dead human body, but they're not a human being

Being able to apply the adjective 'human' to them does not make them 'a human being'. I said the person was "not human any more (being dead)" - the person, once dead, isn't a person - they're an ex-person. The proposition by another poster was that human rights still apply to a dead person. That's what I'm arguing against.

[JeanGrey]

300. A fertilised egg *will be* human, if the pregnancy goes to term.

Uh, excuse me. Are you claiming that a baby/fetus inutero is non-human? What pray tell, would it be?

[muriel_volestrangler]

329. It would be a foetus

It doesn't have human rights.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

261. Thanks.

I have been saying the same thing here, but people aren't getting it.

Its really starting to bother me.

How hard is it to understand the concept of "human being"? Really!

[muriel_volestrangler]

267. That would be 'being' as in::

1 a: the quality or state of having existence b (1): something conceivable as existing (2): something that actually exists (3): the totality of existing things c: conscious existence : life
2: the qualities that constitute an existent thing : essence; especially : personality
3: a living thing; especially : person

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/being

I think it's clear that 'living' is a necessary part of the definition of 'human being'.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

298. Convinent you ignored definitions #2 and #1

because they dont suit your argument.

[muriel_volestrangler]

328. That's because they don't match with 'human' as in 'a human being'

The first definition - a quality or state - doesn't fit what we're talking about. Then we're on to something conceivable or actually existing. If you're going to use that and say that's the 'being' in 'human being', then a pin is a pin being. A cloud is a cloud being. anything that exists, or might exist, and you can name, is an <insert adjective> 'being'. "The totality of existing things" is clearly not the use in 'human being'. Then we're on to "conscious existence : life" - which is existence, but clearly tied to something living. That's no good for your argument at all.

Second definition: "the qualities that constitute an existent thing : essence; especially : personality". Again, we're back to qualities, rather than a physical object, so "a human being" doesn't fit with that. And there's that "especially personality" - which is as aspect of something living.

So we're on the 3rd definition.

[DemExpat]

291. Very much agree.

This IS another step in dehumanizing humans, and irreverence for the dead, seeing humans at death primarily as body parts. I don't see dying humans or animals at all in this light. Nor recently dead ones.

I also will have no part in this bullish expectation and will keep my loved ones out of the hands of harvesters unless they explicitly say they want to be donated. And will be at their bedsides if in hospital to make sure the machines are not turned off too soon (to harvest their organs).

Taking organ donation out of being a loving gift to the expected realm cheapens the entire process far too much for me. I have great aversion to this.

So yeah, I am selfish in simply not wanting me or my loved ones to be seen at death primarily as an organ supply for people waiting on others' deaths for their temporary reprieve.

Wonderful that many people want to give their organs at death, but a terrible thing to expect and even pressure others to do it too.

DemEx

[John Gauger]

302. Temporary reprieve?

What kind of logic is that? Since we are each destined to die, all services are only a temporary reprieve. That is not a reason to cease all good acts.

[NashVegas]

352. For Many, Yes

It's not a good act if it's mandated.

[John Gauger]

375. No, it actually does benefit the recipient.

The fact that it was not done voluntarily does not stop the act from benefiting the recipient of the organ. It does do tangible good.

[NashVegas]

386. With That Logic You Could Justify Pretty Much Anything You Want

There are assholes who rape drunk women, with that kind of logic.

"She didn't notice anything, no harm done and I got sexual release. It was was beneficial to me, so it must be a good act."

[John Gauger]

401. Somehow, I don't see organ donation

as morally comparable to rape. Try again.

Another tip: I didn't say it was right. You said that it didn't do anybody any good. I say otherwise. A good act need not be voluntary for it to be a good act.

[JeanGrey]

84. Just recently a man got into big time trouble for dumping

bodies he was supposed to be cremating. I guess by your idea, he should've been scott free?

[Skittles]

96. his crime was not peforming a service he was paid to do

that's how he got in trouble

[JeanGrey]

301. Oh I see. Only because he didn't "perform a service".

You really buy this? Pray tell if this were your mother or father, the ONLY thing that would've upset you would have then been that you paid for "nothing". The fact that the bodies were tossed into the swamp like garbage would have no bearing, eh? sure.

[Guaranteed]

65. By law, at least in CA, it doesn't. nt

[JeanGrey]

85. Is that so? Does California then pay for and decide where

the burial and type of burial takes place? Since the body belongs to California and all?

[LanternWaste]

383. Well, if nothing else, it begs the question

Well, if nothing else, it begs the question-- once one is dead, does one actually have possessions?

I'm a religious guy and all but to me, there's zero difference between my corpse decomposing, getting eaten by grub worms, or getting carved up on a table and parceled out to those in need. That which makes me sentient is gone and the remains are nothing more than an empty moth cocoon.

I'm sure many would like to retain control over their own corpse after they're dead, but it seems like an ineffectual, symbolic concept at best.

[depakid]

49. "I wish that something like this would, or could, be enacted in the U.S."

With the fundies on the one side and paranoia about government on the other, the chances of that would seem remote.

[flashl]

52. We have presume consent in the U.S.

US Supreme Court refusal to block lawsuit alleging illegal corneal removal could set powerful precedent

In a decision that could set a precedent for future transplantation cases, the US Supreme Court refused on November 18 to block a lawsuit alleging that the Los Angeles County Coroner's office improperly removed the corneas of dead children without first obtaining consent.

The coroners' office was sued by the parents of two boys whose corneas were procured and sold to a Los Angeles eye bank. The decision will allow the parents to sue for damages in Los Angeles federal court for "deprivation of property without due process of law."

Read Full Text

[depakid]

55. Nice to be corrected on that point (perhaps it wouldn't be wise to publicize that, though)

;)

[flashl]

60. .

:thumbsup:

[AX10]

69. Deception.

Very you.

[depakid]

81. rationality & science

Sad that in the states, they're sometimes best not publicized.

Wish I had a cure for that.

[AndyTiedye]

73. Dick Cheney Needs a New Heart NOW, and Yours Is Compatible

How do you feel about your life expectancy?

[formercia]

166. The 'Chop Shop'

Criminals access medical databases and kill to order.

You suddenly have an accident because you're O Negative with the proper genotype.

[MadHound]

97. One man's dogma is another man's legitimate religious, or moral belief.

I'm happy that you're an organ donor, but many people don't want to be, for many reasons, some of them even non-religious. We should respect the wishes of all who are dying. If a person doesn't want their organs harvested, then so be it, it shouldn't be forced upon them.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

151. We need to respect the dying and dead as well as the living.

When did "My body MY CHOICE!" become ONLY about the reproductive rights of women?!?!

Individuals should be allowed control of THEIR BODIES. The government seeking to control after death is just as wrong as seeking to control before or during life.

[MNDemNY]

118. So do I, An "opt out" program, where one would have to

make the effort to NOT be a donor would go a looong way to ending the donor organ shortage.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

143. Death is not that simple.

As our medicine and scientific progress has improved, the way that we see death has changed. Now you got brain death, heart death, stopping breathing, etc.

Exactly when someone is "dead" is sometimes very difficult to say. Especially when it happens in a hospital, since we can keep ppl alive on respirators and other machines.

When is someone dead enough to harvest their organs? When is someone dead enough to "pull the plug"?

I think ONLY family, partners, or friends who the person apointed to make that decisin should be making it. And they shouldnt have to deal with doctors or hospital staff nagging or pressuring them to do it sooner, just because someone needs a organ.

You can be an organ donor if you choose to be, but the important word here is CHOICE!!!!

[gtar100]

377. I don't think the issue is "the dead", it's those on the edge

When someone is on the edge of dying, and may or may not survive even if given the right care and enough time, then we are counting on a high level of ethics in our doctors who also see value in that patient's organs. Not all doctors are the same. Some will do all they can to save their patients, spare no effort. Others have contacts on the black market. Now just how well do we know our doctors?

I hope that more thought is put into it before anything like this is enacted in the US. And hopefully the loopholes will be closed. But I seriously doubt such care would be taken in the legislation, at least not now, give our for-profit health care system.

[THUNDER HANDS]

20. I fully support this

I think it's selfish to not give your organs to someone after you die. What the hell do you need them for anyway?

[peace13]

39. Imagine if you had some specific religious reason.

How would you feel then? Just askin'.

[Skittles]

91. THEN YOU WOULD OPT OUT

GET WITH THE PROGRAM...and by the way, any such religion certainly cold not be considered "pro-life"

[LostinVA]

103. I think people purposely ignore the "opt out" part, so they can act outraged

It's very selfish not to be an organ donor. I think the system should be opt-out, not opt-in. More people would be likely to donate.

[NashVegas]

107. "It's Very Selfish Not to Be an Organ Donor"

The selfishness in this matter is not coming from those who are making the case against mandated donations.

It's those who would mandate donation (whether by default or with no opt out, for financial reasons or medical), who are engaging in bullying tactics - legislation and emotional blackmailing that go against millenniums of a tradition of absolute respect for the dead.

What shit, to call others selfish when we aren't the ones demanding others cough up spare parts.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

155. Calling people "selfish" because they dont do what you want is EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL. n/t

[LostinVA]

167. Oh brother -- organ donors save lives

After death, you're not using them, but they could be used to save quite a few people. It's selfish to not save a life by giving something you're not using.

I can understand religious objections, but other than that, it's being selfish.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

172. It is your belief.

Not that of everyone.

To call people "selfish" for doing something you disagree with is emotional blackmail.

You are attempting to modify behavior by using social control, peer pressure and verbal abuse.

Anyone has the right to object based on thier own beliefs. You should respect that. Even if their belief is not "religious" as such.

For example, according to you, an atheist can't be against this. That is wrong.

The rights of all must be accounted for, and this seems to be the makings of a nightmare where people's rights and wishes are ignored by a dictatorial state mandate.

[LostinVA]

And sick people have a right to all the tools necessary to save them

Go play elsewhere. Hasn't Liberty Baptist started up their classes again?

[muriel_volestrangler]

176. A body has no need of organs once it's dead

Other people could make good use of them. If wanting to keep something you can't use, but other people could, is not "selfish", then what is?

[Hellenic_Pagan]

184. So you say, but your opinions dont apply to others.

Your beliefs dont supercede the human rights and individual autonomy of others.

You may choose to ignore human rights, but i sure dont want my goverment or health care system to do that.

Also, just because you dont believe something doesnt mean you have the right to force your belief on another individual.

Also, you are ignoring the fact of tissue typing and other stuff involved here. Its not like these are car parts that can easily be plugged into anybody. Humans arent plug and play.

Even if you get the parts, it doesnt mean that those parts will save anybody.

Forcing donation is unethical.

[muriel_volestrangler]

200. I don't know anyone who is advocating forced donation

Certainly this story isn't about forced donation. No-one is forcing beliefs on another individual; this is about what a health system assumes as to the wishes of someone who didn't makes their wishes clear. In this case, they are still proposing allowing the next of kin to direct what happens, if the person didn't makes their wishes clear.

Anyway, a dead body does not have human rights. While a live person may have rights to property, they do not have the right to control their property after death; laws in most countries may typically follow wills, but wills can be overridden, and the ability to dispose of your property after death is not a human right. Similarly, it isn't a human right to dictate what happens to your body after you've died. The next of kin is already asked if they want to donate the body's organs already. Are you saying that the next of kin is breaking the deceased's human rights if they say yes?

I'm not ignoring tissue typing at all. If I had, I'd have said something like "there are enough donors already". But there aren't - because of tissue typing, and the smaller numbers of people on the donor register. Because of tissue typing, we want as large a pool of donors as possible - something you seem to want to prevent.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

215. Did you forget the OP already? n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

219. I think you may be the one who hasn't read the article the OP links to

or at least one reply to you. "... or family members objected" - there's no forced donation here.

[peace13]

108. You don't need to use all caps.

It is good that you have such confidence in the government, EMT's, and medical profession to make a very personal decision for you. Opt in if you want to, I have. What you don't consider is people who may not know that they have to opt out or will feel pressured by people such as yourself who do not feel that each person has the right to determine their own destiny. Have you ever had a family member stuck in this situation. My guess is no, by the fact that you think this issue is cut and dry. Your crack about 'pro-life' did not go unnoticed. Your rudeness did not go unobserved.

[Skittles]

284. YES I HAVE HAD A FAMILY MEMBER IN THAT SITUATION

my dad shot himself in the head when he was 50 and lived for six days.

AND I WILL USE CAPS ANY TIME I DAMN WELL PLEASE.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

153. So, you think killing people for organs is "pro-life". wow. n/t

[LostinVA]

171. No one is getting killed for their organs -- they're using the organs of deceased donors

[Hellenic_Pagan]

173. Yeah, and you think that there wont be abuse of that? n/t

[LostinVA]

175. People in the medical profession take the Hippocratic Oath seriously

They don't kill people for organs.

JEEBUS.

[TankLV]

320. And they're all just sooo exceptionally honerable - just like those at Walter Reed...

as opposed to us average "scum"...

[Justitia]

178. Do you know how many "death tests" are given to potential donors?

There are more than 30 separate tests done to potential organ donors to determine death. Usually around 50.

How many such death tests are applied to non-donors? None.

After being educated on the topic, I've learned I want those tests done to me no matter if I'm suitable for donation or not.

From the Mayo Clinic:

Myth. Maybe I won't really be dead when they sign my death certificate. It'll be too late for me if they've taken my organs for transplantation. I might have otherwise recovered.

Reality. Although it's a popular topic in the tabloids, in reality, people don't start to wiggle a toe after they're declared dead. In fact, people who have agreed to organ donation are given more tests to determine that they are truly dead than are those who haven't agreed to organ donation.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/organ-donation/FL00077

[Hellenic_Pagan]

181. Actually...

There are still cases of people waking up in morgues and after being declared dead at wreck scenes.

It still happens. Death is a fuzzy state. It is not a black and white, all or nothing issue.

Mistakes can and do happen... and given a monetary incentive, more mistakes can and will occur.

Simple.

This is a money driven system, and if an indigent person with no insurance and "no hope for improvement" could have their organs harvested for a person on insurance or willing and able to pay the cost of transplantation, it will happen. People will be allowed to die to benefit the rich.

It happens elsewhere in the world, why do you think the US is so sacred that it wont happen here?

[Justitia]

186. And if they were considered for donation, they would have been tested & found to be alive.

But, this has ventured into the realm of urban myth and I suspect no amount of factual information will disabuse you of your positions.

As far as the financial aspects of organ transplantation go, specifically kidney transplantation - the vast majority of potential recipients are existing Medicare / Medicaid clients due to Medicare coverage of End Stage Renal Disease, approved in the 1970s. My son is covered by both and they will pay for his future transplant.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

190. Do you work in healthcare? Have you actually handled paperwork for donation?

I have done work for STA. I know mistakes occur.

This is not "urban myth".

You may wish it was, but it is not.

Your emotions are affecting your judgement and opinion on this subject, so "no amount of factual information will disabuse you of your positions" could apply to your discussion of this topic also.

At least under the current US regulations and system, we can agree to disagree.

[Justitia]

195. Unfortunately, I am well versed in the topic of organ donation & if you were also, you would know

that what you have been posting is a lot of fear-mongering disinformation.

I have had first hand knowledge of the topic since my son went into total renal failure. It is a requirement of his transplant center that we meet specialists from every field, attend lectures, etc - weekly - until his transplant and then, for the rest of his life.

We have accepted the facts of his diagnosis / prognosis and have incorporated that into our lives - forever.

The only overwrought emotionalism on this thread has been from those without the facts.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

209. OK that is a no.

As i said, i worked for an MEs office and have handled transplantation issues. You havent.

I didnt state this earlier, as its really not your business, or that of anyone on this forum, but you keep making emotional appeals. But i had kidney failure twice in HS and have chronic health conditions that have affected me since. I have had to change careers - including getting new training and returning to school - four times because of health complications. I will likely go onto disability within 2-5 years.

But I dont let my personal need override the rights and wishes of others. That is selfish hubris.

I believe in the rights of all, even if it means that I dont get what I want in life.

The way we treat the weakest is a true measure of our humanity. Meditate on that.

[Justitia]

211. Sorry, w/the amount of disinformation you are posting, your claims are dubious.

What exactly does an employee of a Medical Examiner have to do with pre-transplant donation?

And you may have had some type of temporary kidney failure, but you certainly have not had End Stage Renal Disease or total renal failure or we would not be having this conversation. You obviously do not depend on kidney dialysis to live.

Again, to get back on topic, this post was about what to do when a decedent has not expressed any donation preference and their family has no objection to donation.

I am sorry you are so opposed to organ donation, but that is your wish.
Make sure everyone in your family knows you want to take your organs with you when you are buried or cremated.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

214. Same could be said of you

with your emotional appeals and logical fallacies... oh yeah and your definiton of who is a "valid" religion or not.

Yeah.

The ME handles bodies post-mortem for hospitals and we handled bodies organs tissues etc for transplantation. Also harvesting occured largely in the MEs. Yet more your "research" didnt discover.

Also, it is often hard to get families to make informed decisions around the time of death. They are emotionally vulnerable.

I believe it is ethically wrong to make them responsible for making sure donation or harvesting of thier relatives' organs doesnt occur at that time because of the interaction i have had with people in that very situation.

My view on this is based upon my experience with mourners, not my own personal (selfish) medical needs.

[Justitia]

220. You seem to have an "emotional" interest in discouraging donation. Fine.

The 'valid religion' comment is out in left field, as is most of the rest of your post.

If you want to be buried / cremated with all your organs intact, great, tell your family.

Just don't try to fear monger everybody else with falsehoods, urban myths and outright fabrications.

Everything I have posted in this thread is easily verifiable with searching reputable internet sites (i.e., UNOS as one example) or their local transplant center - don't take my word for it.

I think we're done here.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

228. You are still upset

about what I said in my first post, and that I didnt back off in response to your protestations.

"I think we're done here." Good.

As I said, since we are in the United States, where there is freedom to donate or not, we can agree to disagree.

If we were in the UK, that wouldnt be the case.

[Justitia]

232. No, I simply asked you to be honest & not spread disinformation & fear-mongering.

Hopefully you will agree as a matter of integrity regardless of your personal disdain for organ donation.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

235. You need to be honest and stop spreading disinformation too.

You need to have respect for people who disagree with you and allow them that belief, without calling them names or defaming them.

Just because someone disagrees with you, or has more knowledge than you on a subject, does not mean they are dishonest or "fear mongering".

Recognizing that individuals are ALLOWED to disagree for religious reasons would be the first step on your showing respect and honesty. But im not waiting for you to do either.

[Justitia]

238. No one needs a reason to decline from donating, religious or otherwise.

Do not put words in my mouth.

The topic, no matter how much you care to veer from it, is about what Britain is considering doing if the decedent made no official declaration and relatives are unopposed.

You are looking for a fight with someone over organ donation (or religion, maybe?) and I'm not interested.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

239. Then why do you replying to me? n/t

[Justitia]

242. Because I'm a glutton for punishment? (Organ donation is an important topic) -eom

[Hellenic_Pagan]

245. And the killing of patients to fuel the organ trade is too. n/t

[Justitia]

249. okey dokey. You watch too much TV. -eom

[Hellenic_Pagan]

251. Nope, You can shut your mind, but the reality is different from your perceptions.

You can try to ignore what I say because it challenges your pet beliefs, but it is the truth.

The fact that you are so ignorant of the american health care system and the abuses of it astound me for someone who has a family member depending on it for his life.

I hope that your son doesnt become prey to the captialist greed of the current system, and i hope for the both of you that you dont learn that hospitals leaving patients to die is not "tv fiction" or "urban legend" by losing your son.

I also hope that a doctor or the government doesnt decide what should happen to your son's body because of a law or policy.

[Justitia]

253. Thank you so much for your concern for my son's life & if he loses it.

I can feel the warmth of your sentiments from here.

:sarcasm:

[Hellenic_Pagan]

257. As I can feel your respect and knowledge. n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

270. Now that is fear-mongering (nt)

[Hellenic_Pagan]

274. how?

where is there fear in saying i dont see any respect for or knowledge of religious beliefs that disagree with her viewpoint?

Or do you have a new definition of the term?

[muriel_volestrangler]

280. My post was a reply to your post #245

In which you said, in full, "And the killing of patients to fuel the organ trade is too. n/t"

There aren't people killed to provide organs. That you bring up the suggestion of it is fear-mongering. Nothing to do with religious beliefs - you're talking about them in different posts.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

282. Yes, both are valid concerns.

Yes, you have Nationalized health care in UK, which is different than we have in the US.

Here, our system is run for profit. If the law, talked about in the OP, was to be applied here, it would only worsen the way that uninsured and indigents are treated.

Already patients in the US are left to die because they have no money or insurance. If there were an economic incentive to let them die, more would. Organ donations are big bucks.

Because you have national care in the UK, it doesn't matter if someone is poor and there is no such thing as uninsured. All people get treated equally.

If you think that all people get treated equally in the US system, you are not aware of the system, or choose to ignore the truth.

[muriel_volestrangler]

221. You're the only person in the thread who's used the word 'valid'

Don't try to construct a strawman.

[theredpen]

247. You're splitting hairs

The validity of religious objections has been questioned in this thread. Don't pretend it hasn't to score cheap rhetorical points.

[TankLV]

321. Actually - you have a point...

there is anecdotal evidence of persons who stated they were organ donors, after initially receiving crappy care and attention when first admitted. Then, after declaring they were organ donors, their "care" suddenly and vastly improved with the anticipation of "new meat" - and they eventually recovered.

Sick but true...

[JeanGrey]

304. Stop it! You're making too much sense.....................

Yes I want those same doctors who were going to pull the plug on Haleigh Poultre to decide if I'm dead....................

[Hellenic_Pagan]

309. Read this

it will make you trust doctors even less...

But some of the people on this thread ignore it and call it "urban legend" or "myth" just because it debunks their pet belief.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/13785890/detail.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/30/national/main3115699.shtml

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=26196

That is just ONE CASE from last year. How many more need to die before they see this is bad and that docs cant be trusted in this area?

[JeanGrey]

317. You are preaching to the choir with me.

I've had a serious illness for six years. In that time, I had to have seven surgeries because an original stent was put in wrong, I almost bled to death because I had low platelets, had an IV pulled out by a nurse and they didn't check to see if the bleeding stopped; I've been given doses of medicine I'm allergic to more than three times; was overdosed on morphine once in ER, and had these errors in my medical records:

That I was an alcoholic (I don't drink)
That I have Hepititis C (I don't)
And that I was missing all the toes on my right foot (you guessed it, I have all my toes).

There is a LOT more that I won't bore you with; but no, this isn't a good idea, and no, I don't trust this slippery slope.

People that haven't had a ton of experience with the medical profession tend to see "expertise" with rose colored glasses.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

363. Dude...

... sorry to hear that. Ill remember you in my prayers meditations and offerings.

Its amazing how most ppl who have to deal with the US healthcare system are sick and fed up... even people who WORKED in healthcare. I have health isses, and wanted to "make a diffrence", so i got a job trying to do that in healthcare.

I got to a point where i realised one person isnt gonna change anything as long as corporations and insurance companies REALLY run the health care in this country.

I saw people denied care because they were indigent, Mexican, poor or uninsured. I know of people who died because of that lack of care. Their families couldnt do a damn thing cause either they didnt speak english, they were poor, or they believed it when the "mighty doctors from on high" descended from their holy mountain to tell them that it wasnt their fault, their loved one was "beyond hope". And anyway, nothing would bring back their family member, so what is the fucking point of suing? money cant solve all probs (something americans, esp the health care system needs to learn!) and not everything has a "dollar amount" attached to it. some things are PRICELESS - like ppl!

Then i went to work @ the MEs office. It was even more frustrating, cause instead of dealing with just one hospitals fuck-ups and "oops!"s i got to see all of them for a five-county area. It was enraging.

I went to work at a vet clinic till my health got to where i just couldnt do it anymore. In the US, our PETS get better care then people, because corporations and insurance companies dont think they can make a buck off em - yet.

I totally agree with you about the rose colored glasses... and it makes me think of Glen Beck. He thought everything was hunkey-dorey until it was HIS ASS that was almost killed. Then he pitches a total fit and wants things to change... i guess he figured a rich famous white guy on the news should have better care. Surprise! Were all equally screwed here!

Nanny states scare me, especially when they want to control my body... and its really ironic that people in this forum who get frothing over "pro-lifers" telling em what to do will gladly have the goverment control their bodies in another way since it meets their NEEDS and WANTS.

HYPOCRACY!!! man. its not just for the repukes anymore!

Peace my friend! :loveya:

PS - i use "dude" for both genders, i dont mean to offend ya :silly:

[JeanGrey]

374. No offense taken, although it is "dudette". LOL

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[Hellenic_Pagan]

384. ...

:rofl:

OK dudette!

:rofl:
For some reason, the word "dudette" makes me think of:



tee hee!

[Hellenic_Pagan]

306. what about this

Is this a tabloid? Is CBS News BS?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/30/national/main3115699.shtml

Its amazing what you can find on google if you use it find things. Even things you disagree with.

Here are more links,if you want to read about it.
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=26196

[JeanGrey]

318. Now you'll probably have people tell you the doc

was just "doing the right thing" for the patient..................

[Hellenic_Pagan]

361. Nah, they said it was just a single case that doesn't count.

Its amazing how some ppl on this thread dont give a shit about humans, lives or anything that doesnt have to do with them... and then they call US selfish for wanting to control our own bodies.

As I asked before, when did "MY BODY MY CHOICE!" begin to ONLY apply to abortion rights?

Geeez.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

308. Here is a Dr in SF who killed his patient.

He killed his patient.

For organs.

What do you say about that?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/30/national/main3115699.shtml

[LostinVA]

314. There are murderers in all walks of life

Anecdotal instances are meaningless.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

316. Murder is NEVER meaningless.

This is not "anecdotal" just because it refutes your argument.

You said doctors take their oath seriously and NOBODY is killing their patients.

How many people have to die before you admit you are wrong?

[Skittles]

285. no, but I think your reading comprehension sucks,wow,n/t

[Hellenic_Pagan]

262. If you have some religious reason...

you'll get defamed, flamed, bashed and insulted.

See my posts in this thread and you'll see what I mean.

And some people (wont say who, but its apparent from her responses to me) have confused my dislike of mandatory or automatic donations with me hating any and all donations.

Geez, there are fundies here at DU... I joined this board to get away from em IRL. Geeez.

[mitchtv]

59. as a recipient, I am torn. however

I believe if you ride a motorcycle without a helmet you should be presumed a donor, that's why they call them donorcycles

[renaissanceguy]

133. And I have a right to be selfish if I want to.

eom

[Hellenic_Pagan]

156. Ping! n/t

[moggie]

255. Of course you do

And the proposed scheme would enshrine this in law, with an official register of selfish people for you to sign up to just by ticking the "I'm a selfish bastard" box. At last, validation for your selfishness! Aren't you pleased?

[Hellenic_Pagan]

139. Why do your view get forced on everyone in the system? n/t

[Hellenic_Pagan]

152. So you think individual's human rights are "selfish"? Nice. n/t

[The Traveler]

319. Good for you ... BUT

in a free society, the government does not intrude so forcefully deeply personal things like, for example, the disposal of one's own body and/or parts.

The novels and short stories of Larry Niven from the 60s and 70s might provide a few cautionary parables on this subject ... I was recently reading an article (link provided by the noble babylonsister) about the organ black market and how Iraq has become its preying ground.

Yes. The rich need things ...

[ElboRuum]

21. Funny how the country that brought us...

..."so, can we have your liver, then?" has gotten up to this.

[BadgerKid]

22. It's bordering on Monty Python (lol)

http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/mol/m-10-v.htm

[Hellenic_Pagan]

165. Or "in living color" where the dysfunctional family attend a funeral.

I couldn't find the vid on either YouTube or MySpace!

Aaarrrgh!

[Lautremont]

23. This seems fine to me.

But then, I'm a zombie.



(I'm actually a Canadian - surely you can tell the difference almost immediately.)

[Robb]

66. Of course

Zombies don't care for hockey. Too fast.

[whopis01]

117. Zombie rules football is much better anyway. n/t

[daleo]

24. All your organs are belong to us

In case that hadn't been done yet.

[Theres-a]

33. Heh,heh.

I was looking for that.Nice.

[OhioChick]

25. This is Wrong on so Many Levels. n/t

[Hekate]

27. In some cases "opt out" is a good idea. This may be one of them,but with powerful ethical guidelines

Organ transplantation is now a life saving possibility in many cases. It's high time we had a national bioethical policy on what constitutes brain death, when and how it is to be carried out, and how it is to be paid for. Speaking of payment, I am absolutely opposed to the sale of organs.

An opt-out provision would work the same way as opting out of school vaccinations and loyalty oaths. There are religious groups that find even blood transfusions abhorrent and they should be allowed their practices -- no donations, and also no receiving.

I've carried an organ donor card since the early 1970s, as my attitude is that if I have not used it up myself, someone else is welcome to the leftovers. I sure won't be needing whatever it is in the next life.

Hekate

[Gormy Cuss]

44. The main issue with opt out is assuring that no opt-out instructions exist before slicing and dicing

That requires a nearly fool-proof system, like an imbedded biochip or tattoo, something that can not be separated from the body easily the way a donor card can.

It's also highly arrogant to assume that people who are ambivalent about organ donation and therefore haven't chosen opt-out, or those who are too young to make that choice have automatically agreed to it upon death. I'd hate to be the mother of a minor child whose organs were harvested that way.

I'm all for encouraging organ donor opt-ins but treating the dying and still warm dead as body farms without regard to the family and its belief system doesn't sit well with me.

[Hekate]

63. All good points, Gormy. We are overdue for national standards with strong ethical guidelines...

As a country, we really need to hash this out. There's nothing easy about this issue. Minor children are under the wings of their parents in this as in everything else -- I think at minimum parents/guardians MUST be consulted.

Hekate

[muriel_volestrangler]

99. The UK has a national organ donor register

to which, at present, people can sign up (eg online) to indicate willingness to donate; hospitals can access this, and do not need to find a donor card (assuming they've identified you by some means). The same system could be used for people who want to opt out. Minors would need parental consent, as Brown says:

Of course, any "opt-out" system would - in cases where the potential donor is not on the register - leave the final decision with the family: that is only right and proper.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/13/norgans213.xml

So, whatever the age of the deceased, they'd have to ask the family, even if the person hasn't opted out. The difference is at the moment, the family is asked "your relative never considered organ donation - would you like to consider it anyway?"; under an opt-out scheme, it would be "your relative never objected to organ donation - can we proceed?".

The few belief systems (Jehovah's Witnesses - any more than that?) that object to organ donation can, and no doubt will, organise their followers to opt out.

[Gormy Cuss]

119. Rephrasing the question that way is not as benign as it sounds.

One of the reasons opt-outs are preferred is that more people will not want to be on record as saying no to something that's view as a societal good (the other principal reason for opt-out systems is it cuts
down on the work for those trying to garner permission.)

Opt in systems are a positive approach in that they give people an opportunity to assert their wishes, yet there are already many people who act like there's something wrong with those who don't sign up for organ donation. When opt-out is the default position it will be considered even more anti-social to opt out. That's great for increasing the supply of organs, but as a societal shift it's a bit troubling to me.

I have experience with both opt-in and opt-out systems. In my previous career we were required to obtain consent before accessing or disseminating information about subjects. When I started in the field, opt-in was the standard. By the time I left it, opt-out was used for all but sensitive data where informed consent was the norm. With the opt-out systems, there were always people who objected after the fact that they didn't receive the notification or didn't understand the presumption of permission.

[muriel_volestrangler]

127. Look at the UK figures

90% of people support organ donation, but only 25% have signed up for the opt-in register. That's inertia on a lot of people's part.

It is anti-social to opt out. The dead body has no use for the organs. The society of the living does. An opt-out system means that people are presumed to be social rather than anti-social.

[Gormy Cuss]

132. It's probably more than inertia.

Signing up as an organ donor is the only approval rating that matters.

Poll people on whether reducing the world population in order to save the planet is a worthy goal and you'll get over 90% agreeing. Ask them whether they would be willing to forgo having children to accomplish that goal and you'll get a different answer.

[LostinVA]

105. In the US, the next of kin has to give approval for the organs to be harvested

A mother would never have her child's organs harvested without permission.

This is also why organ donors need to make their wishes known. Many organ donors never have their organs harvested, due to family objections.

[Gormy Cuss]

130. Right, because we are an informed consent country.

The Federal laws presume that the without a directive from the individual that certain family members are able to act as proxies for communicating the person's wishes. I believe that even a minor's wish to become an organ donor is honored if the box was checked on the driver's license form (that wasn't the case a few years ago.)

It's ironic that improved transplantation techniques are the major reason for the organ shortage. Lowered traffic death rates contribute too. Even in countries with presumed consent laws there's a shortfall. Xenotransplantation is one technique that may close the gap, as is development of synthetic organs and tissues.

[TheCentepedeShoes]

28. Slippery slope

and with all my feet I don't feel comfortable

[Orangepeel]

30. what an alarmist headline

it makes it sound like organs will be taken against someone's will.

I'm a strong advocate for organ donation (as one can see from my signature line). Of course, nobody should have to donate organs if they don't want to (I personally think everyone should choose to, but it is their choice).

I would prefer an "opt out" system, but I don't want there to be a backlash against donation like this headline is likely to cause. People react very negatively when they feel they are being forced into something.

I'd be happy if it were always honored if a person has indicated that they will be an organ donor on their driver's license. Right now, the family still has to give permission and can overrule people's stated wishes, which I think is wrong.

[NashVegas]

109. Alarmist But Factual

An opt-out system is great for getting organs from people who aren't diligent about stating their wishes.

[terisan]

32. even Pontius Pilate gave Jesus's body to his family to make their decisions

[Mortos]

34. I don't see what the big hangup is about our dead useless corpses

I think people should be compensated for their organs, not living donations, like the do in India and other parts of the world, but compensate the family of the deceased. We pay donors for plasma.

People are so hung up on what is done with the body after death. I don't care what you do with mine. If my family could make a few bucks off my corpse...all the better.

By the way, I have "opted" to be an uncompensated organ donor on my license and have relayed to all my family members that anything I have that is still in good shape can be donated to whomever needs it.

I don't understand this obsession with our dead bodies that we have, it's really strange to me. Like, people go: "So, would you rather be cremated or buried?" I don't give a shit. I do not care. Y'know, I... I don't know, you can fucking do whatever you want man, I'm dead. Y'know. I don't care, 'cause I can't. Y'know. I mean, at least get some use out of my body, y'know, give it to a bunch of necrophiliacs or something. Yeah! Let 'em have a big ol' circle jerk over me. I don't give a shit, I'm not going to take it personally, I'm not going to be offended, y'know. Sit there and have a big ol' party. Just fuck me in the ass, fuck me in the mouth, fuck me in the eye-hole, the ear-hole... Make a new hole, fuck me there. I don't care. --- David Cross

[defendandprotect]

36. Hi-!! Hurry up and die 'cause someone is waiting for your organis--!!

This is another sick and insane proposal --- but what's new?
Our planet has been operating on the sick and insane level for a few hundred years or more ---
maybe tens of thousands of years .... ?
When did patriarchy start? Male violence?

Meanwhile, we seem to have very strong attachments to our organs . . . emotionally, even.
People have been reported feeling the emotions of the original donor when they've received implants.
I don't think this is meant to be---!!!

[The2ndWheel]

37. "would be automatically presumed, unless individuals had opted out"

So we automatically belong to the state, unless we opt out(which gets more difficult, in various ways, all the time)?

Shouldn't that be the other way around? We're automatically free of the state, unless we opt in.

But then that would be a much different world.

[peace13]

106. Exactly.

It is surprising how many people contributing to this thread are intolerant of others. Ridicule seems to be rampant. Peace, Kim

[Ian David]

38. WWGD?

What Would Gil Do?



Gil Hamilton
Created by Larry Niven

GIL HAMILTON isn't actually a private eye, but he sure acts like one. He's a member of A.R.M., a special unit of the U.N. dedicated to the task of tracking down organleggers. You see, in the future, medical knowledge has reached the point where almost any body part is transplantable. But the demand for organs and other "spare parts" has gone through the roof, and criminals can make a good living murdering someone and selling them off piece by piece. It's a nasty business, and it's up to A.R.M. to stop it. Gil is a tough, resourceful cop, a man who works alone, and takes a personal interest in his work. See, he lost an arm, once, in an outer space mining accident, and benefited from a transplant himself.

Well-drawn characters, interesting concept, and a tough, hardboiled feel that suits the subject matter. One of the very best sci-fi/P.I.s. A couple of comic book mini-series appeared in the early nineties, a little too stiff in tone for my tastes. Stick to the originals novel and short stories. They're worth hunting down.

More:
http://www.thrillingdetective.com/hamilton.html

[Mortos]

41. Let me get this straight....

organ donation Good! Government making law to allow more organs to be harvested from dead people who didn't choose to opt out Bad! People are dying every day who could benefit from the thousands of people who die and leave behind perfectly useful eyes, lungs, hearts, kidneys, livers, skin, bone and tissue and some of you think it is a bad idea to make a law saying hospitals could harvest the organs of dead people unless they opted out.

OPT out if you are so selfish or religiously blinded that you think your organs are better off being burned or buried.

It's doesn't seem that big a deal to me.

We are so hung up on corpses and what is done with them that we spend tens of thousands of dollars for a "proper burial".

The living could be better served if we got beyond our primitive concepts of death.

[area51]

61. "... if you are so selfish or religiously blinded..."

Nice. That will certainly convert people to your way of thinking. :eyes:

[Skittles]

92. well

what would be the other reasons?

[Hellenic_Pagan]

157. How about a nice, logical argument instead of emotional blackmail and slander? n/t

[Skittles]

286. how about an answer? n/t

[YankmeCrankme]

324. How about, because I don't want to.

You know charity should be voluntary, not mandated by the government and I believe donating organs is a charitable act.

[AndyTiedye]

72. Dick Cheney Needs a New Heart NOW, and Yours Is Compatible

Do you think they will wait until you are actually dead, or even terminal?

[Pithlet]

412. Don't you think that if they're going to go that far

they will do it regardless of whether the law is opt in or opt out? If they're going to go out and murder the first compatible person they can find to save the vice president, then we've got much bigger problems then whether or not you have to check that little box on your driver's license.

[flashl]

47. In the U.S., presumed consent in FL, Los Angeles, D.C.

[Mortos]

48. OH MY GOD.....The HORROR

Is the evil empire just lopping peoples heads off right and left there?

[flashl]

51. not quite ...

Concern about black market

US Supreme Court refusal to block lawsuit alleging illegal corneal removal could set powerful precedent

In a decision that could set a precedent for future transplantation cases, the US Supreme Court refused on November 18 to block a lawsuit alleging that the Los Angeles County Coroner's office improperly removed the corneas of dead children without first obtaining consent.

The coroners' office was sued by the parents of two boys whose corneas were procured and sold to a Los Angeles eye bank. The decision will allow the parents to sue for damages in Los Angeles federal court for "deprivation of property without due process of law."

Read Full Text

[AX10]

79. Bankrupt the SOB!

That will set a real precident.

[alcibiades_mystery]

53. Does the story start with me waking up in a Tijuana bathtub filled with ice?

If not, I don't care. Save life, not corpses.

[LeftyMom]

54. Good. The dead don't need them and the living do. Yay for recycling. nt

[martymar64]

57. Hello ! We're here for your liver!

n/t

[rayofreason]

58. Here is the video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJnFOTkV214

Enjoy.

[pleah]

62. "Soon you won't even have to be dead"!!!!!!!!!!

Where are these people coming from. This is horror movie stuff. WTF!

[Ilsa]

64. What's next? Will young women be forced to donate eggs since they

don't need allof their own? After all, there is no way that all of our eggs get used up during our reproductive lives. Will men be forced to donate sprem so others can make babies? Will be forced to donate one kidney since we only need one anyway?

Some people have religious beliefs about the human body and death, and their families will suffer if their collecti ve beliefs are not honored.

[Robb]

67. Two of those three things have been taken over by the market

Interestingly. And I suspect the line would be around the block if you could get a few grand for a kidney.

Historically, such things are either driven by the market or the state. At this point in the illustrious history of capitalism, even as crappy a job as the state does at most things, I'd go with the state before letting corporations get their fingers around it. :shrug:

[LeftyMom]

70. I'd rather some family suffer superstitious angst than lose a loved one for lack of a transplant. nt

[JeanGrey]

86. But you or no one has that right.

I think everyone should be an organ donor. However, it is not our right to take what is not freely given, sorry.

[LeftyMom]

87. but nobody owns them, they're abandoned property

The owners are dead, they do absolutely nothing to or for the deceaseds' heirs, but they can save or improve a life.

life > peace of mind for the superstitious

[Hellenic_Pagan]

163. human beings are human beings. period.

Just because you dont believe in something religious doesnt mean you have the right to stomp on the beliefs of others.

The religious right pulls crap like that - just because they do it in the name of faith and you do it in the name of "secularism" or "improving life" doesnt change the fact that you are both ignoring the autonomy and rights of others.

And just a bit of history, people during the 1940s said that people didnt have the right over their bodies. They collected gold fillings, hair and other things that "the people didnt need" or "werent using". Those were the Nazis.

I recomend you read the http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html">UN Declaration of Human Rights. It might enlighten you a bit.


More here ---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

[LeftyMom]

296. Godwin. You lose. Thanks for playing.

[theredpen]

303. Godwin's Law

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

It doesn't say anything about winning or losing.

Accusations of loserhood really suck when they bounce back at you. Ouch.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

368. It's tricky ground

Although I find that inappropriate comparisons with the Third Reich usually illustrate a weak debating position.

[theredpen]

378. I think that the Nazi comparisons are appropriate

Because we have a solid thread of "trust the government absolutely" and "you only have the rights you are permitted to have" in this discussion. Both of these were pillars of Nazi ideology. I'm sure that there are other examples (the Khmer Rouge?) but why not stick with the familiar one?

You called yourself "Anarcho ...", so do you agree that we only have the rights that the government says we have? Anarchism says that rights are the property of the individual and may be provisionally conceded solely on the basis of that individual's choice.

Here we have a lot of people saying that rights are whatever "the government" says they are and too bad if they stomp on your freedom and humanity. Who does that sound like?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

379. I see no link

between a system of organ donation with an opt-out provision, and a requirement of consent from family, with the murderous crimes of Nazi Germany. There is no link to be had. The argument that this somehow involves "trusting the government absolutely" is a red herring. Again, this is an opt-out system within a national health care system. You're jumping from this to Nazi ideology, and then the Khmer Rouge of all things. Those are anachronistic and inappropriate comparisons.

Anarcho-socialists operate and struggle within confines of the state system. Since there is provision for providing an opt-out, there is no infringement of individual liberty. I cannot stand in the way of a system that establishes a platform of consenting opt-outs (no matter how misguided seeking to prevent one's organs being used for good after death is) and a policy which should lead to a greater supply of life-saving donor organs. Potential lives and the liberties of those needing transplants need to be done justice by society.

[Name removed]

382. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

389. Your post is offensive

Stop it with your pathetic slander. You've gone from a consensual organ donation system straight to anti-Semitism and Auschwitz. You've used a classic association fallacy, not to mention your shameful indecency of using the Holocaust in a debate about organ donation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

[Hellenic_Pagan]

305. Fascism is not a game. n/t

[Anarcho-Socialist]

370. fallacy Reductio ad Nazium n/t

[Hellenic_Pagan]

158. Nice. You don't believe in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

180. Does the Declaration of Human Rights have anything to say about dead bodies?

I think not. It's about the rights of living human beings; and it says nothing about a right to control the dead bodies of relatives wither.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

194. Human beings are still human, even after death.

Even if you don't recognize that, the UN does. Thank goodness.

[muriel_volestrangler]

204. Where does the UN recognise that? (nt)

[AX10]

68. Britain must be the testing ground for the authoritarian state.

There is something extremely unsavory about Britain. I never liked that place, never will.

[flashl]

76. Its not just Britian ...

Harvesting Organs From Silence

Imagine the government deciding that, with or without your consent your organs will be donated upon your death. Sound like a farfetched "Big Brother" scenario? Think again.

In 26 states, doctors already can obtain organs for transplantation and research with presumed consent. Presumed consent enables the legal removal of tissues and organs ‑ such as corneas and kidneys ‑ without prior permission of the deceased or his family.

Few people in the affected 26 states know about the law. Fewer realize that there is a burgeoning movement to make presumed consent widespread.

---

Corneas removed without permission Under law that allows tissue to be taken after death, relatives often never find out

Imagine that your spouse, child or parent dies in a car wreck, by a robber's bullet or of an unknown cause.

Then suppose that, without your family's knowledge or permission, the county medical examiner investigating the death allows a technician from the local eye bank to remove the corneas from the body. With a few deft strokes, the thin, transparent tissue that covers the colored part of the eye is cut out, later to be transplanted into someone whose corneas have become clouded by disease, injury or infection. You are none the wiser; flesh-colored plastic caps slipped over the body's eyes hold the lids closed.

...

Hospitals don't tell

Nor do hospitals inform patients and family members about the law.

...

Legislative consent laws are also on the books in Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, New York, Ohio and the District of Columbia. In Mississippi, Illinois, Indiana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Tennessee, cornea removal is allowed without consent if a "reasonable" effort to contact relatives is made.

Cornea removal without consent constitutes a serious breach of ethics and morality, said Michele Goodwin, an assistant professor of law and co-chair of the Health Law Institute at DePaul University in Chicago.

"Not only does the public not know that these laws exist, you find very often that lawyers, judges and policy-makers don't know these laws exist," Goodwin said. "And this ability to opt out is illusory. Unless someone has written on her shirt, 'Please don't take any parts of my body,' then the medical examiner won't be aware of any refusals to donate."

Erik Jaffe, a lawyer in Washington, D.C., who has written on the subject, said the laws put politics over principle.

Read Full Text

Black Markets: The Supply and Demand of Body

[AX10]

77. The real question is:

which Doctors are our friends and which are our enemies?

[Alameda]

75. I am opposed to this

in many religions the body is supposed to be treated in a particular manner. Consent should clearly be given prior to any "harvesting" There are also other things to consider, like "The Billion-Dollar Body Parts Industry: Medical Research alongside Greed and Corruption"
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1535

Or..."Outrageous Fortune: Selling Other People's Cells" http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0093-0334(199011%2F12)20%3A6%3C36%3AALOFSO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4

You may have to cut and paste that link...sorry

[moggie]

88. Why ASSUME that the patient has a religious objection?

In the UK it's likely that only a minority would have a religious objection to organ donation (this is not America), and those will be able to opt out, so why presume that a patient has such a belief? Would you expect a hospital to presume that a comatose patient is a Jehovah's Witness, and thus withhold a life-saving blood transfusion?

If this scheme goes ahead, I expect that those religious groups which oppose saving lives will publicise the opt-out scheme to their adherents, and that will be in addition to the publicity it'll get from the government.

[NashVegas]

112. Not Religious Does Not Necessarily Mean

A lack of spirituality.

[moggie]

122. Uh-huh

So, let me rephrase the question: why ASSUME that a patient has a religious or "spiritual" (whatever that is) objection?

[muriel_volestrangler]

128. What has spirituality to do with this?

It's physical body organs, not non-physical spirits, that are being talked about.

[NashVegas]

145. Wow. Just. Wow

Has it never occurred to you that pretty much *all* philosophies concerning spirituality have been developed as a means for us to cope, emotionally, with the unknown aspect of death and dying?

Or perhaps you are ignoring it?

[muriel_volestrangler]

183. 'Spirituality' is about spirits - ie non-physical existence

That's all I'm saying. Remember that your body starts decaying as soon as you're dead. There's no need of a complete, but decaying, body in any idea of spirituality.

[Skittles]

94. let me guess

those religions call themselves "pro-life"

[muriel_volestrangler]

100. How many religions?

No major religion in Britain objects to organ donation:

There are no injunctions in Buddhism for or against organ donation.

"I hope that Christian people will seriously and positively consider organ donation. The ready willingness to donate an organ is a clear sign of that sacrificial self-giving for others patterned by Jesus Christ."
David Ebor, Archbishop of York

"Every organ transplant has its source in a decision of great ethical value… Here lies the nobility of a gesture which is a genuine act of love. There is a need to instil in people's hearts a genuine and deep love that can find expression in the decision to become an organ donor."
His Holiness Pope John Paul II

"Any act that can save life, such as organ donation, is a great thing and quite acceptable within our faith."
Council of African & Afro-Caribbean Chuches (UK)

"The Methodist Church has consistently supported organ donation and transplantation in appropriate circumstances, as a means through which healing and health may be made possible."
Methodist Church UK

"Christians should generally be encouraged to help others in need and organ donation can be a very concrete and sacrificial way of helping."
The Rt Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali
Bishop of Rochester

http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/how_to_become_a_donor/religious_perspectives/leaflets/christianity_and_organ_donation.jsp

There are many references that support the concept of organ donation in Hindu scriptures. Daan is the original word in Sanskrit for donation meaning selfless giving. In the list of the ten Niyamas (virtuous acts) Daan comes third.

http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/how_to_become_a_donor/religious_perspectives/leaflets/hindu_dharma_and_organ_donation.jsp

One of the basic aims of the Muslim faith is the saving of life. This is a fundamental aim of the Shariah and Allah greatly rewards those who save others from death.

Violating the human body, whether living or dead, is normally forbidden in Islam. The Shariah, however, waives this prohibition in a number of instances: firstly in cases of necessity; and secondly in saving another person's life. It is this Islamic legal maxim al-darurat tubih al-mahzurat (necessities overrule prohibition) that has great relevance to organ donation.

http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/how_to_become_a_donor/religious_perspectives/leaflets/islam_and_organ_donation.jsp

In principle Judaism sanctions and encourages organ donation in order to save lives (pikuach nefesh).

The Sikh faith stresses the importance of performing noble deeds. There are many examples of selfless giving and sacrifice in Sikh teachings by the ten Gurus and other Sikhs.

Sikhs believe life after death is a continuous cycle of rebirth but the physical body is not needed in this cycle - a person's soul is their real essence.

"The dead sustain their bond with the living through virtuous deeds."
Guru Nanak, Guru Granth Sahib

"The Sikh religion teaches that life continues after death in the soul, and not the physical body. The last act of giving and helping others through organ donation is both consistent with and in the spirit of Sikh teachings."
Dr Indarjit Singh OBE, Director of the Network of Sikh Organisations UK
Endorsed by Sikh Authorities in Amritsar, Punjab

http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/how_to_become_a_donor/religious_perspectives/leaflets/sikhism_and_organ_donation.jsp

[upi402]

78. At one time I refused to be a donor

I was afraid they'd let me die in-hospital in order to harvest my organs (at a huge profit).

[Evoman]

80. This thread is fucking full of irrational people.

An opt out system doesn't fucking mean that you will have your organs pulled out of you by Dick Cheney or anybody else while your still alive. Christ Almighty!

When your dead, your fucking dead. DEAD. D E A D. You don't need your organs once your dead. They are useless to you. If your religious, then opt out like the JH's opt out of blood transfusions. No problem...your a credit to your religion...your body is still in one piece so that god can look deeply into your fucking corneas. Good for you.

But there are people whose lives will be saved....children even...by this.

From what I can see, people here seem to fear that rich people will be killing us for our organs. C'mon! If your scared of that, opt out and the rich guy with a failing heart won't get your precious organ. And if Dick Cheney is really itchin' to get your organs, what makes you think an either an opt in or opt out program makes a difference to him? He ALREADY has the resources to have you killed or steal your heart from your dead body if he wants it.

:eyes:

[Skittles]

93. isn't it something?

people need refresher courses on comprehensive reading

[SyntaxError]

160. Maybe their brains were harvested.

[The2ndWheel]

111. But if it's presumed that the state can use your organs to help a person in need

and someone would have to opt out of such a system(and the penalty for doing so would increase since an entity such as the state requires conformity...just like if you didn't want to pay your taxes because you were against the war, you're still going to jail or paying a nice fine if they catch you), then we don't own our own bodies, and so we're not really alive in the first place. We will end up being born for the state, living(producing and consuming) for the state, and dying for the state.

"You don't need your organs once your dead."

And if we're dead the moment we're born...

Here would be a good question(I think anyway...but then I could be biased). Say a woman wants to have an abortion. Can the state say no, because the potential person will some day have organs that might be needed to save a life?

On the chance that your organs might be needed to save a life, how much say could the state have over your life? Wouldn't the state need your body in perfect condition when you happen to die? Be it car accident, old age, piano falling out of a window.

It's the presumed consent part. You don't presume consent. You either call it what it is, which is that the state owns your ass from birth to death, or you don't presume consent.

[Evoman]

339. Yes, and if you had universal health care, the goverment would

dictate which doctor you go visit, when you could go visit, and they will force you to eat vegetables and NEVER let you eat donuts.

:eyes:

Same kind of fear-mongering bullshit. Same kind of hyper-paranoia and fear of the government that is stopping you from having nice things like health care.

[NashVegas]

113. Pot. Kettle. Black

If you want rationality, I'll be happy to bring up the following:

1. The earth is over-populated and is increasingly losing the ability to nourish all of the people and animals on it.

2. Dead buried bodies contribute nutrients for future generations.


Would you dispute this?

[Evoman]

123. Your absolutely right. Absolutely.

Which is why I'm proposing we:

1) stop trying to cure cancer.

2) stop giving people with HIV, flus, and bacterial infections any sort of treatment.

3) stop all essential surgeries.

4) we turn people into mulch (without their permission) when they die and fertilize the soil with their remains. Those bodies aren't doing us any good laying in a box in some graveyard, or in some urn.


We need only the strong to survive and in order to do that, we need to stop with the medicine. It breeds weakness.

How's that for rational?

[NashVegas]

353. That Doesn't Strike Me As Being Logic

So much as sarcasm.

[Evoman]

359. No...seriously. You've converted me to your way of thinking.

The best use of human remains, environmentally speaking, is as mulch and compost.

What? Don't tell me your disagree with my previous post?

[rayofreason]

129. Soylent green....

...is on the menu.

Oh my, what will PETA do!

[JerseygirlCT]

154. Thank you, Evoman. A little sense

This would be problematic if there weren't an opt-out. But there is. So the fuss is over... what, exactly?

Too many people each year die because they desperately need a transplant. Meanwhile, we're parking dead bodies in the ground. How senseless!

I think some people have been reading a few too many medical thrillers.

[Evoman]

322. Holy donated-corneas, batman.

You agree with me?

I am re-evaluating my position..... :P

[JerseygirlCT]

372. LOL. Uh oh

Am I wrecking your reputation?

[treestar]

307. I hear you, but the determination that you are DEAD is not as

simple as it used to be. I could easily see this being abused. Declaring to people that there is no hope for their relative, when maybe there is, when their organs are needed. Not impossible.

What's wrong with sticking to what the person wanted in life? I'll sign anything that says you can use my organs. Those who won't, don't.

[Evoman]

323. EVERYTHING has the potential to be abused.

EVERYTHING. But that doesn't mean you should be unnaturally scared about it. I am going to donate my organs...my family knows, its on my drivers license, and even my doctor knows.

Does that mean that I should be afraid of some doctors (who are actually mostly really good people) ending my life prematurely?

Fuck that man. I'm not going to let some stupid irrational fear rule me and stop me from helping some people who really need me. In fact, I told my gf and family that if I'm a vegetable that they should end it early so that other people can live a life worth living.

[YankmeCrankme]

325. Not wanting to give your body to the government after death is not irrational.

Get over it. Some people don't want the government having this much control, some people don't believe in forced "charity". As for saving lives, how about making me donate money to a cancer charity. Right now, I don't do that because there is a de facto "opt in" premise. Your thinking says the government should be able to pass a law that forces me to donate to these life saving charities/organizations. I'd rather the government not pass laws that force me to be charitable, I like giving voluntarily, that way I get to choose where my money goes, not the government.

Same with my body.

[Evoman]

338. Two fucking words...OPT OUT.

Bam. Done. You get to keep your body. Nobody is fucking forcing you to do anything.

All the rest of your post is a strawman.

[Name removed]

342. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Evoman]

343. Hehe.

You need a lot more practice before you can be as profane as I!

:rofl:

[Nihil]

351. Fine. View it this way then ...

> They should have to ask me first, not me tell them I don't want
> to do something.

They are asking you but, as you're dead, your answer is somewhat
indistinct unless it has been written down beforehand so they are
simply stating that they will be interpreting your unwillingness
to communicate as "Go ahead & take whatever bits are still useful
to save someone else" instead of dithering around on the off-chance
that some distressed relative might be sufficiently undistressed
as to give them the "go ahead" on your behalf.

You now know the situation and can take the appropriate response.

There ... easy wasn't it?

PS: It will only apply if you're a UK citizen anyway so don't go
flying too far off the handle just yet.

PPS: No swearwords were harmed in the production of this post. :P

[TerwilligeRedux]

354. the government?

doctors are part of the government?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

390. That argument is used by opponents of universal health care and social services

[Skittles]

89. I agree with the opt out system

PEOPLE DON"T NEED THEIR ORGANS WHEN THEY ARE DEAD and if they are selfish enough to want to keep them THEY CAN OPT OUT.

[KansDem]

104. I'LL GIVE UP MY ORGANS WHEN THEY CAN PRY THEM FROM MY COLD DEAD FINGERS!!!

Not really...:) I have a "donor" driver's license, although they may not want my heart since it gave me some problems in 2003. :(

And they can have my brain if they can find it...

[FlyingSquirrel]

268. DUzy alert!~

[Javaman]

110. Damn, that totally trashes my request for being buried Egyptian style!!!

I mean, I had all these clay pots ready for my organs.

[NashVegas]

115. I Love Those!

We had a huge museum exhibit here on the Egyptian death rituals, artifacts, etc. The thought that went into helping the dead on their journey to "the other side" was amazingly poignant.

[sarcasmo]

114. Hospitals, another reason I avoid them. Getting creepier by the day.

[MNDemNY]

116. If we used an "opt out" program for organ donation, we would not have an organ shortage.

[NashVegas]

121. If We Accepted Our Mortality As Inevitable, We Wouldn't Have Such High Demand

A thought occurred to me: with generation X waiting so long to marry and have children, into our 40s even, demand for organs is going to skyrocket from people who will demand more time to see their kids grow up, have grandchildren, etc.

It won't be pretty.

[MNDemNY]

124. Tell that to the 8 year old in need of a Kidney transplant.

[Justitia]

144. I guess you think my 24 yr old son on the kidney list should just drop dead.

"accept his mortality" and all.

Gee, thanks.

The amount of ignorance on this thread regarding organ need & donation is mind-blowing, but there aren't enough hours in the day to combat it.

For all those in favor of saving lives via organ donations, my son & I thank you from the very bottom of our hearts. You can never imagine the life-changing impact you have on so many, it's incalculable.

[NashVegas]

146. I'm Sorry For What You're Going Through

I simply don't believe your need / demand should be able to ride roughshod over society's traditional respect for a person's last wishes.

[Justitia]

150. I would never contradict anyone's last wishes, organ donation is a gift.

I don't know where you got that from.

If someone has an explicit wish to NOT donate their organs, that is their right.

The topic is what to do if there is no explicit declaration either way upon death.

[NashVegas]

233. You Appear to Have Misunderstood My Post

I wrote of society's traditional respect for the wishes of the dead regarding their human remains and their property. That's what's being run over with opt out. This places undue burden on a person to be diligent if it's not their wish, and is on the "slippery slope" to mandatory donation.

[Justitia]

240. okay, understood. -eom

[muriel_volestrangler]

275. But the only change here is when there is no wish expressed

It changes so that when no wish was expressed by the deceased, then the next of kin needs to say "don't do it" to stop it. If the dead actually had expressed wishes about what happens with the body, they'll still be followed under the new system. Why is expressing a wish an "undue burden"?

[Hellenic_Pagan]

161. That is a logical fallacy called "the false dilemma"

Just because someone is against forced organ donation does not mean they are against voluntary or elective donations.

I understand your emotions and feelings about this, but emotions and feelings get in the way of logical arguments.

Also, just because you have a need, doesnt mean you can walk over the human rights or religious beliefs of others.

You wouldnt want a person who doesnt believe in donations saying your son can't get a kidney would you?

All parties, the donors and those who dont believe in donation, need to have thier views respected. This isnt a black and white issue for gods' sakes! (But then not much in life is!)

[Justitia]

164. No, you're misinterpreting what was said. Your comments on this topic are inflammatory.

What you have posted is rife with misinformation and ignorance of the topic.

I vacillate between wanting to provide the correct info to dispel myth & fear, and just giving up because there is so much to correct.

No one will be "forced" to donate their organs against their will or their families wishes, not even close.

The topic is what to do if the decedent never explicitly stated either way, and the family has no objection to donation.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

169. No. It is universal donation except where the person opted out.

That means that noone will be consulted prior to organ removal if there is no opt-out paperwork in the system.

That is mandatory harvesting.

[Justitia]

174. Wrong, read it again. Families wishes are always respected.

"The proposals would mean consent for organ donation after death would be automatically presumed, unless individuals had opted out of the national register or family members objected."

Here, in the US, even if a potential donor has indicated their desire to donate, a family mbr can overrule their decision. Family mbrs always have the final say. That is why it is CRITICALLY IMPORTANT that people communicate their desires to their family members.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

193. As long as their objections are on record.

Check what you quoted.

"The proposals would mean consent for organ donation after death would be automatically presumed, unless individuals had opted out of the national register or family members objected."

What is your problem with opting-in?

This makes the assumption that donation is allowed. In cases of religious beliefs, this is bad, as if the body has been "violated" after death, there is no "undoing" it.

The rights of the minorites should never be trompled on in the name of "saving lives" or "what the majority wants". Religious and other individuals should not have to worry that their bodies will not be handled in the proper manner... and the current US system handles that well. There are occasional mistakes, but this system being unveiled in the UK allows for much greater error.

[Justitia]

199. Every major world religion endorses organ donation. -eom

[Hellenic_Pagan]

206. Not entirely.

And if a person of a "minor" religion does not want it, that is their right.

Appeal to popularity is another logical fallacy.

As long as a single individual protests, their rights MUST be upheld.

It doesn't matter how many people believe something, it is their right to have their beliefs respected. Period.

Oh, and when i hear an appeal to popularity, here is what scarry image pops in my head:



Fuck popularity. Power to the people - especially the minorities!

[Justitia]

208. Name one major world religion that discourages organ donation.

It is simply more disinformation to fear-monger against organ donation.

And again, NO ONE or their family, is being forced to donate an organ upon death - they don't need a reason AT ALL to decline, religious or otherwise.

I just don't want to see "religious beliefs" thrown around as disinformation against donation because it simply isn't true.

Keep in mind, I wouldn't ask you to name a religion that discourages donation if I didn't already have the information myself.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

212. You dont get to define what a "valid religion" is.

I am a greek reconstructionist. I dont care if you dont think my faith is "major" enough to warrant your respect.

I, like many people my age, am a member of an independent religion. Many pagans have similar beliefs. Just because we dont have a Pope or Church doesnt mean we dont have rights.

Oh, and Jehovah's Witnesses, Some Orthodox and all Hasidic Jews, Amish, Mennonites, Christian Scientists, and Shintos dont believe in it. But i guess they dont count as religions to you?
Or did your extensive research not find that out.

I wonder what other facts youve missed out on or willfully ignored.

[Justitia]

216. No one is using religion but you. And incorrectly, as well.

If you are going to claim those religions are against organ donation, expect to be corrected on that:

http://www.organtransplants.org/understanding/religion/

I don't care what religion you are personally or if you have any religion at all.
I simply won't allow you to mislead others as to what those religions teach about organ donation.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

227. Because religions as a whole arent against it,

doesnt mean that ALL members of that faith must agree on that tenet.

Most religions allow believers to come to conclusions based upon the tenets of faith on thier own. Only fundamentalist faiths DECLARE that a believer MUST adhere to all articles of faith as expressed by the "authority".

Maybe you are only familiar with fundamentalism, if so, you need to learn A LOT more about religion before you begin to talk about it.

Here is another article that you should read on organ donation and faith:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/76/story_7677_1.html

It clearly shows that the faiths I listed do not allow organ donation, but that contradicts what you have stated as "fact".

Other, better sources which are not available on the net, but in book form only, can be found in your library.

No one should base their beliefs on a single web page.

[Justitia]

231. Wrong again, the article shows no such thing. It confirms exactly what I said.

With the exception of what the author wrote about Jehovah's Witnesses - he has outdated information.

From The Watchtower magazine, March 15, 1980, pg. 31:

“While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue. For this reason, each individual faced with making a decision on this matter should carefully and prayerfully weigh matters and then decide conscientiously what he or she could or could not do before God. It is a matter for personal decision. Gal. 6:5 The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant.”4

Don't try to use religion to dissuade organ donation.

If you don't like organ donation personally, don't donate, it's as simple as that.

Don't hide behind religion, because religion is not on your side in this debate.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

244. Only if you have the ignorant view of it that you hold.

You did not view page two of the article obviously. Not surprising since that was where it discusses the groups who are against donation.

And to think at the beginning of our discussion you accused me of being close-minded. You are just as set in your beliefs as others on this thread.

Your ignorant, close-minded, white, western view of religion is really lacking... appeal to popularity and all.

And if you are wondering who brought this into the realm of religion and ethics, it was you by stating that people who dont donate are selfish and somehow bad people - which is a moral judgement. Moral judgements are the realm of religion.

Are you really going to stop responding? I dont think you can stand it that I dont bow to you and your emotional appeals.

[Justitia]

248. You must have me confused w/another poster you're arguing with - I said no such thing.

I have no freaking idea what you are talking about.

And what in the world makes you think I'm white or of the western world? :crazy:

I feel like I'm in the 5th dimension.

[pagandem4justice]

400. Khaire, Hellenic_Pagan...

please forgive me for inserting a question here. I've been following this debate with great interest. As a fellow recon, I'm wondering if you're referring here to a citation in the ancient texts that discourages organ donation or certain disposal methods? All I can think of in reference to your objections (in the religious vein, that is) would be a disposal method which would subject the body to "miasma," or ritual pollution. However, I'm not certain if that concept would even apply to a "vacated" (dead) body.

Thanks for the indulgence! :)

[Hellenic_Pagan]

230. What did you mean by stressing "major" then?

If it wasn't mean to indicate some sort of validity?

And you said "I just don't want to see "religious beliefs" thrown around as disinformation against donation because it simply isn't true."

That statement is where I got "valid" because you are implying that if a person says THIER religion doesnt allow it, its not true. What's not true - their religion? their beliefs?

You dont hold a degree in theology or world religions, so what are you basing this on? Do you really think you know ALL world religions? Are you so arrogant that you think you can speak for all people of faith? If so, youre as bad a Christain Fundamentalist - or you might be an ex-fundie.

Where did you get your store of religious knowlege from? A single partisan website? A website that espouses YOUR beliefs. A website that promotes the conclusions you have already reached.

"Keep in mind, I wouldn't ask you to name a religion that discourages donation if I didn't already have the information myself." You dont have the information yourself. And you dont want it either, as it challenges your dearly held belief and you cant stand the ambiguity.

[Justitia]

236. This post is off the deep end. I'm not interested in theological debate w/you.

I have no desire to determine if religion "X" is a valid religion or not - that's for the Religion and Theology forum, not me.

You tried to use religion as a reason to discourage organ donation.
I clarified that every major world religion endorses organ donation.

You cannot claim the tenets of the world's majority (as in majority of the Earth's population) religions are against it.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

241. Its not "theological debate" its you clarifying what you said.

And again, you go to the "appeal to popularity", and restate your misunderstanding of religions' stance.

I suggest you read more than just pro-donation sites.

Expand your mind, read what the opposition has to say.

[Justitia]

243. Opposition to what? -eom

[Hellenic_Pagan]

246. Read what religious groups have to say for themselves.

Besides on your pro-donor sites.

For example, on Jewish view of organ donation:
"Even when there is a specific, immediate transplant, there is need for caution, because oftentimes in order to obtain organs as fresh as possible, a doctor will remove the organ before the patient is actually "dead" according to Jewish law.

The doctor is therefore effectively killing the patient, which is, of course, forbidden.

The bottom line is that each case is different. A myriad of considerations in halacha must be reviewed. So before going ahead with any procedure, consult with a rabbi well-versed in Talmud and Jewish law. It is clearly not as simple as blankly signing an organ donation card."

from http://www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/Organ_Donation.asp

[Justitia]

250. Why don't you read your own post - LOL. Too late, you edited it! -eom

[Hellenic_Pagan]

252. If at first your taunts dont, suceed you resort to "LOL". Nice.

And you call me the one who need education?

Wow.

[Justitia]

254. Oh sorry! I totally forgot to welcome you to DU on your first day! -eom

[Hellenic_Pagan]

256. Thanks! I'm glad to be here! n/t

[Justitia]

258. Half my family is Jewish, organ donation is considered a great mitzvah.

It even said so in the site you linked. Please do not do the Jews the great disservice of claiming they do not endorse such a generous act of faith.

"It is a great mitzvah for a Jew to donate organs to save another person's life."

[theredpen]

260. Some of my best friends are Jews!

We have so much in common.

I suspect that none of your family are Hassids. But, hey, let's start a group that speaks on behalf of all Jews anyway.

[Justitia]

263. So I should debate Jewish orthodoxy w/someone named "Hellenic Pagan"?

Sorry, I'll save that for my uncle, the rabbi.

Thanks for your smart ass, butting in post, which has absolutely ZERO to contribute to anything.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

273. Maybe he can explain the WHOLE article to you

as it says, "its not as easy as signing a donor card". But that would involve reading the whole article - not just the parts you agree with.

And again, you defame religion. I bet your ancestors and uncle are really proud of you.

[Name removed]

276. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[theredpen]

313. Let's try again

I think the key word here is "debate." Since the sub-thread was deleted, maybe we (I said we) should try more "debate" and less "berate."

What's in a name? Saying that someone doesn't have anything to say about Judaism because their freakin' forum name is Hellenic_Pagan is just an insult.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

264. You cant even read what I post

with your blinders on.

You just see the sentence that agrees with your viewpoint and the whole rest of the article be damned.

Jeeez.

Talk about selective sight.

Just like you've lost sight that I am arguing against the AUTOMATIC HARVESTING OF ORGANS as discussed in the OP.

You have decided to make this about all forms of organ donation. You have decided to make it about religious views that you dont like. But you don't see that either, I guess.

[Justitia]

265. I should have been more selective about reading profiles before I post.

And now that I was totally sucked in on an issue that I care about, I feel like a moron for starting down this path.

Oh well, bringing the issue of organ donation to the table is always worthwhile.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

269. I care about this too

but im beginning to wonder if you only care about prosyletization to your belief on this.

You dont really want to discuss this with anyone, so cut the crap.

If someone disagrees with you, like a fundamentalist you will keep arguing until they give up or agree with you.

Im not giving up and im sure as hell not going to agree with you - especially after you have said people are not allowed to disagree with you on religious grounds.

Keep those responses comin'

[Justitia]

271. Don't you have homework to do? -eom

[Hellenic_Pagan]

277. wow. what a mature and intelligent response.

You really are scraping the bottom of the bucket arent you?

[LostinVA]

168. I hope your son gets his kidney

My wife's father was a kidney recipient.

[Justitia]

170. Thank you for the good wishes. When people see the issue first-hand,

they understand the magnitude of the gift.

[YankmeCrankme]

326. So you think other people "owe" you and your son?

What do I owe you? The right to live? I owe you my body after death? So, my existence is to be a future organ donor for someone else. That's my obligation and responsibility as a citizen?

Yes, donating organs that help other people in need is a selfless act of CHARITY, not something that should be mandated by the state.

[Justitia]

337. Oh brother, try reading ALL my posts where I say organ donation is a "gift", over & over - nice try.

Don't put words in my mouth.

I'm amazed to learn of so many people just looking for a "fight", no matter what the topic is.

[theredpen]

341. "Gift" is derived from "to give"

If you "take without consent," it's not a gift by definition.

[YankmeCrankme]

344. This thread was about a law making organ donations mandatory

You threw in your personal situation and tied it to your son's life to argue against people who feel this is would be a bad law.

I'm all for people donating organs as a charitable act, not a governmental mandate.

[Justitia]

349. Wrong again - don't misquote me (again). I have taken no position on "opt out".

I began posting on this thread to address disinformation about organ donation, I have made no declaration - either way - on whether "opt out" should be enacted in Britain.

Please don't misstate my posts.

[formercia]

120. He must have been watcing Monty Python

Bring out yer Dead.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

159. But I'm not dead!!! n/t

[formercia]

162. Boink!!

Alright, then. See you next Thursday.

[flashl]

126. Regarding presume consent .... We are ALREADY on slope and maybe OVER the cliff

Use of foetal eggs grotesque, say campaigners

Jeevan Vasagar
Wednesday July 2, 2003
The Guardian

The prospect of babies being created from the tissue of an aborted foetus, raised by Israeli research announced at the Madrid conference on Monday, was attacked by the Roman Catholic church and pro-life campaigners yesterday

The Israelis said they had had some success in growing egg-producing follicles in ovarian tissue taken from human foetuses, a technique which might eventually be used to grow eggs for fertility treatment to help childless couples.

The announcement met with scepticism from professionals in fertility medicine.

The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cardiff, Peter Smith, said there was grave concern about the prospect of scientists harvesting eggs from aborted foetuses.

"There is something deeply wrong with a society that can even contemplate harvesting eggs from the ovaries of aborted foetuses," he said. "How is it that we can recognise that the aborted foetus is human enough to become a biological parent and yet not human enough to have the right to life?" Nuala Scarisbrick, a trustee of the anti-abortion charity Life, said: "This is grotesque, even by the low standards of IVF morality.

"We are concerned for any child that may be manufactured through the use of an unborn baby's eggs _ when they find out that their mother was aborted and that their grandparents consented to that."

[superconnected]

188. ewwww. I guess I'm glad you posted that article. But ewww

that they would do that.

[Arugula Latte]

131. I wish we had "opt out" here.

Assume people will donate their organs unless they explicitly have stated "no."

Dead people don't need them anymore. The living do.

[superconnected]

187. The problem is the grey area where the dead may have been saved

but the organ was worth hundreds of thousands so the dead got left to die. It's the enevitable abuse that follows with this much money on the table.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

135. Whoah.

That is really problematic.

Not only does this ingore certain cultural and religious groups' not allowing organ harvesting, it seems like it could lead to health problems.

I have read where organs, tissues or blood have been taken from the bodies of "donors" around or after the time of death, and then cause infection or other problems in the recipents. This sort of system seems like there might be more organs with disease or problems being given to people who need them.

I think the "opt in" system, like most of the US and Canada have, is the best. Because family members, partners, and/or friends aren't really in the state of mind following a loved one's death to say "Hey, we don't want organ donation!".

Also, it seems like it would be a violation of HIPPA or patient's rights. I don't know if they have that sort of policy in the UK, but it seems like they should!

[muriel_volestrangler]

205. It really seems you want less organs donated

Otherwise why are you claiming this could "lead to health problems"?

Not getting a transplant, and dying - that's a health problem. The same screening of the suitability of organs will be done in the proposed system.

[superconnected]

192. Gee, look at china

Wonder how taking all the organs you can get your hands on will work out for them.

Oh wait... the surplus of organs doesn't fix all the needy 8 year olds, it fixes the wealthy around the world first.

Who'd have thunk!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

196. i think maybe it should be an opt out system

[DrDan]

218. so . . . the Government would own the citizen's body once dead?

That does not seem right.

[muriel_volestrangler]

222. Is that your proposal?

It's not the proposal in the article.

I don't think anyone 'owns' a dead body - you can't sell the ownership, for instance, nor can someone give the ownership of their body to whoever they want to in a will.

[DrDan]

224. well . . . if the "Government" can decide to take parts without your

explicit consent, and redistribute them . . . then they seem to be taking ownership of your body it seems to me.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

229. Exactly. n/t

[superconnected]

237. egad... People will their bodies to universities medical labs all the time.

It's called leaving your body to science.

Yes, someone explicity owns the dead body/organs in it. For a transfer of organs the family has to sign the body or just the organs over to another organization. There's a lot of paper work involved. I've been presented with it before while a family member I listed in this thread was still alive before they even fully knew what his medical problem was.

Regardless even donated organs are worth big money and are owned by the organization that pays for them being harvested - that may be the hospital who gives it to the most suitable doner on a doner list. If an organ turned over to a hopital is stolen, you bet the hospital will report it and will be the legal owner, that also goes for any other private company, as well as individual citizens seeking their loved ones stolen organs.

[muriel_volestrangler]

289. That might 'ownership', or it might be 'custody'

A medical school doesn't get the right to do whatever it wants with a body - there are rules. Organs aren't worth money in the UK - it's explicitly against the law to buy or sell them.

[YankmeCrankme]

327. You didn't really address his point.

Let's say a person donates an organ generally or to a specific person. In the general case, the institution with possession of the organ sells or gives it to the hospital doing the transplant. You can't give or sell something that isn't yours, so they must own it. Once the person receives it they are now the owner, same as if it was directly willed to the person. If I give one of my kidneys to my brother who will die without the transplant, am I still the owner of the kidney? Of course not, its my brother kidney at that point, I couldn't donate it to another person after I give it to him, it's his.

The state becomes the owner of your body with this law.

[DrDan]

334. exactly . . . and if this does not overstep the bounds of any government, I don't know what does .

why wait until death? If one enters a hospital with a terminal illness, why not let the government assume ownership at that time and begin the harvest.

This is disgusting.

[muriel_volestrangler]

395. The opinion of Liberty (the British equivalent of the ACLU)

Possession of a Dead Body

It is a well-established principle of law that ‘there is no property in a corpse.’ This means that the law does not regard a corpse as property protected by rights. This means that there can be no ‘ownership’ of a dead body. The only exception is where a body or body parts acquire different attributes by virtue of the application of skill, e.g. dissection or preservation techniques.
The questions that can arise after a death include:

* Who is entitled to bury the body or authorise a post mortem?
* Can relatives object to a post mortem and in what circumstances?
* Are those entitled to conduct post mortems permitted to retain organs or other tissues obtained during the procedure and for what purpose can these body parts be used?

In order to answer these questions it is necessary to understand who has the right to possess a dead body. In the first place, anyone who has a duty to bury the deceased has the right to possess the body in order to bury it. In many cases the duty will fall upon the administrator or executor of the deceased’s estate (that is, the deceased’s property). An executor is a person appointed by the deceased’s will to deal with the deceased’s estate. An administrator is a person appointed by a court for the same purpose. If there is no executor, it is arguable that the person first entitled to a grant of administration of the estate should be also entitled to possession of the body in order to determine how to dispose of it. This is usually the spouse, nearest relative or next of kin or in the case of a child, the parents. When the Civil Partnership Bill comes into force, it will award surviving civil partners the same rights with respect to administration of the estate as surviving spouses. This suggests that surviving civil partners will have the same duty to dispose of their partner’s body as surviving spouses.

There are other people who might also be entitled to lawful possession of the body as a result of their duty to dispose of the body. If the body is lying on hospital premises, the hospital authorities will be in lawful possession of the body. If the Coroner has jurisdiction (the power to hold an inquest) (see below: Inquests) he or she has the right to possession of the body for the purposes of his or her enquiries. This same authority is sufficient to permit the pathologist, as the Coroner’s agent, to have the legal right of possession until the Coroner’s inquiry has stopped.

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-rights/chapters/rights-of-the-bereaved/the-rights-over-a-dead-body/possession-of-a-dead-body.shtml

[theredpen]

225. ...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=37ERbN2eb0o

[Hellenic_Pagan]

226. I have a squeegledysplooch!

SUCH PLENTIFUL ORGANS!!!

[theredpen]

259. Seriously: control of your body (even after death) is a right

This "opt-out" of organ harvesting is an "opt-in" on a right.

Rights are not opt-in. What if we passed a law saying that everyone had to become a Christian, but you could "opt-out" if you wanted to have another faith (or none). I think people would be upset.

The stats say that a lot more people support organ donation than actually opt-in. That sounds like a "get out the vote" kind of problem. The people who do not support organ donation are very serious about it and the opt-out system threatens to trample on their rights.

I guess that doesn't matter to some people — heck, they're fringe weirdos anyway and heck, they won't notice their rights being violated after they're dead. Yeah, fuck 'em. Go Ron Paul!

[muriel_volestrangler]

287. "control of your body (even after death) is a right"

(a) Why?
(b) An opt-out process still allows a person to direct what happens after their death. They still have the 'right' you claim for them.

"they won't notice their rights being violated after they're dead" - well, yes, they won't notice anything after they're dead, whether or not they're rights.

[theredpen]

295. Rights are rights

Deal with it.

Frankly I am pretty fucking sick and tired of my fellow Americans telling me that my rights don't need to be respected because they have a more important agenda. I really didn't think I'd have to deal with that shit here.

[muriel_volestrangler]

330. You can't just claim anything as a 'right'

It has to be something that is agreed as a right by society, with reasoning. Despite what another poster claimed, there's no mention of this 'right' in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, for instance, nor in the US Constitution or amendments, for you. It's possible there is some federal law or state law that lists it as a right, but no-one has bothered to point that out yet - possibly because the story is about the UK, of course. Rights given in such laws can be changed by society , of course. But to try to answer my question "why is control of your body (even after death) a right?" with "Rights are rights" has told us absolutely nothing.

Under this proposed system, if someone isn't on the opt-out list, the next of kin will be asked if they want to donate the body's organs. Are you saying that the next of kin will be breaking the deceased's human rights if they say yes?

[theredpen]

335. What part of "right" don't you understand?

It has to be something that is agreed as a right by society, with reasoning.

Really? So black people really didn't have a right to be treated as humans in America until "society" decided that they were human?

Rights are inalienable. They may be codified in law, but conceptually they exist regardless of whether they are granted or denied. If something can be legitimately denied, it is a privilege.

That's why it's called the UN Declaration of Human Rights, not the UN Grant of Human Rights. In 1920, we didn't grant women the right to vote, we recognized; ethically, they had the right at citizens, but it had been denied.

It's possible there is some federal law or state law that lists it as a right, but no-one has bothered to point that out yet

Perhaps that's because it's bleeding obvious: it's called "probate law" and it's based on British common law. In other words, it's such an old feature of Anglo-American law that I'm pretty shocked that anyone would actually be unaware of it.

Under this proposed system, if someone isn't on the opt-out list, the next of kin will be asked if they want to donate the body's organs.

Read the article again. Under the proposed system, no one is asked. If anyone wants to prevent organ harvesting, they have to step forward and stop it.

I mean, imagine if you came home from a two-week wilderness excursion to discover that your parents had died, and that everything they had had been given to Rudy Giuliani's Election Fund because, "Rudy really needed the money and, well, you're parents didn't, and you certainly didn't say anything."

Of course, that's money, which is worth something to you and I'm sure you're going to say, "But what the hell am I going to do with my parent's organs? Have a dinner party?" Obviously not, but your parents may have had wishes as to what would be done with them or you may have wishes. These wishes are almost certainly religious in nature and therefore not subject to the value judgments of non-believers. That's because they are a right — a right enumerated in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

This is an issue of ethics. Ethics isn't necessarily about doing what makes everyone happy, but doing what is justifiable. Removing organs from the deceased without explicit permission is not justifiable under probate law, nor is it justifiable in light of people's right to hold whatever religious beliefs that appeal to them. Furthermore — and this is a US-only argument — it creates a dangerous financial incentive to let people die so their organs can be harvested. If "trust us, we won't screw you," was a historically successful way to ensure that institutional power would not be abused, then we wouldn't have to enumerate our rights at all — but we do.

[muriel_volestrangler]

336. Read what Brown said

"Of course, any "opt-out" system would - in cases where the potential donor is not on the register - leave the final decision with the family: that is only right and proper."

Rights do not exist outside of a society. The society has to decide on them. There is no list of rights we can refer to that wasn't produced by people thinking about them. When the UN declared human rights, it was saying what had been agreed by those who drew up the document; it wasn't a 'discovery' of rights. You can't just claim to know personally there's a right to dictate what happens to your body after you die; rights do not leap fully formed out of one person's head.

I am unaware that probate law covers the disposal of bodies in Britain. If it does, that will mean a bit of probate law will need to be changed for the opt-out system.

You say: "These wishes are almost certainly religious in nature and therefore not subject to the value judgments of non-believers"

No, 'rights' are not defined by personal religious beliefs. Wishes that are religious in nature are indeed subject to value judgements of non-believers (as well as believers, of course) - eg religious wishes to discriminate about homosexuals.

[theredpen]

340. Thank you for turning thousands of years of political philosophy on its head

Rights do not exist outside of a society.

Thank Jeebus that this country wasn't founded by people who believed that in any way shape or form.

Wishes that are religious in nature are indeed subject to value judgements of non-believers (as well as believers, of course) - eg religious wishes to discriminate about homosexuals.

You are confusing a lot of different issues. I have a right to hold whatever religious view I want regardless of whether you like them. If my religious says that gay people shouldn't marry, you can certainly bitch about it, but you have no right to tell me not to hold that belief.

The argument against gay marriage is purely moral and not ethical, however, so it's pretty clear that gays have a right to marry. Some religious people would like to suppress that right for "the sake of the children" or whatever. Nevertheless, gays have the right to marry now and society just has to get its collective head out its collective ass and permit them to exercise that right.

It's abundantly obvious that you are arguing this point from a position of personal opinion and no evident personal experience or background in this issues. I don't really have the time to compensate for your obvious lack of a classical education and I'm not very motivated to get into a protracted debate with someone who can delete my posts.

Have a nice life.

P.S. And yes, you may have my organs when I'm done with them.

[Nihil]

356. "Thousands of years of political philosophy"?

> It's abundantly obvious that you are arguing this point from a position
> of personal opinion and no evident personal experience or background
> in this (sic) issues.

:rofl:

Given your pretentious title followed by nothing but personal opinions
in the body of the post, that is hilarious!

> You are confusing a lot of different issues.

Pot & kettle.

> I have a right to hold whatever religious view I want regardless
> of whether you like them. If my religious says that gay people
> shouldn't marry, you can certainly bitch about it, but you have
> no right to tell me not to hold that belief.

And there we have a prime example that "rights" do not exist except as
a label to be waved around to support individual opinions.

You have no rights.

There is not one thing in this world that you can hold up and say it
is a "right". Not one.

You are (probably) free to express an opinion on whatever you choose
but this does not constitute a "right", merely an opinion.
(The "probably" comes from the fact that I don't know your circumstances
and there are certain places, certain times & certain opinions that you
may be prevented from expressing said opinion - there is no "right" there.)

You can point to a book of laws or a constitution but they are not
"rights", they are "rules" as determined at that time by the body
responsible for providing them. They can be revoked by that same body
or its successors and, moreover, have no objective existence - just a
common area of understanding that only prevails through consensus.

You can express your views on a subject (from organ donation to
gay marriage by way of freedom of religion) but these are not "rights":
they are, at best, transient conventions within a community or society.

There are no rights for anyone alive on this planet so the concept of
the "rights" of a cadaver are simply ridiculous.

[theredpen]

376. "You have no rights."

This is why some allegedly left-wing partisans scare people. Seriously. Maybe we should leave the fascism to the Freepers, huh?

Let me just leave it at this: I am willing — ultimately — to fight and die to defend my Constitutional and Human rights. If you are not prepared to fight and die to take them away from me, then I suggest you shouldn't try.

[Nihil]

392. Congratulations! For the first time in this thread, you are correct!

... but only in your title.

> Let me just leave it at this: I am willing — ultimately — to fight and die to
> defend my Constitutional and Human rights. If you are not prepared to fight
> and die to take them away from me, then I suggest you shouldn't try.

Woo hoo! :patriot: Get that second amendment out!

If you spent as much time learning English as you *believe* you have done
learning your "Constitutional and Human Rights" then you would have
*understood* the original statement and saved yourself hours of typing.

If you had spent a fraction of that time learning philosophy then you would
have realised that your "argument" (such as it is) is based on the misguided
idea that you have any "rights" in the first place to "fight and die" for.

I can take away every single "right" that you think you possess with a
single action.

How does your declaration of *desire* balance against that?

:rofl:

[theredpen]

398. Misguided

If you had spent a fraction of that time learning philosophy then you would have realised that your "argument" (such as it is) is based on the misguided idea that you have any "rights" in the first place to "fight and die" for.

Repeating a lie does not make it true.

But go ahead and keep telling yourself that. This "philosophy" I'm supposed to learn certainly wasn't shared by the founders of this country. I'm happy to operate under the principles by which they established our system of law.

You are right that I have no idea where you get your ideas. They apparently don't have an author — other than you.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

385. your comments support russian propaganda poster stereotypes!

For you who dont know Russian, the gloves he is putting on say "human rights".

[Nihil]

391. For those of you who don't know English ...

... the person who posted the previous reply is incapable of understanding
the English language and so has jumped to ridiculously erroneous conclusions.

(Edited to avoid deletion)

[Hellenic_Pagan]

396. I may not know English well

but i can tell when you edit to cover your ass.

You still are a bigot, in any language.

[Nihil]

402. If it's not your first language then you are doing well.

Still,

> ... i can tell when you edit to cover your ass.

That would be by reading my comment on editing then:
>> (Edited to avoid deletion)

You didn't deserve the slur (firing from the hip) so I removed it.

> You still are a bigot, in any language.

"irrationally intolerant"?
In that case sorry and I'll leave you to your beliefs without further ado.

[muriel_volestrangler]

358. The people who founded the USA were a society

They had conventions to list what they thought were rights, after discussion. Those rights didn't appear by revelation.

"I have a right to hold whatever religious view I want regardless of whether you like them. If my religious says that gay people shouldn't marry, you can certainly bitch about it, but you have no right to tell me not to hold that belief."

Yes, and 'bitching about it' is the value judgement you talked about earlier. People don't have an automatic right to act on their religious views, however - their actions have to be consistent with laws. People can hold a religious view that their body must left out for birds to pick dry, but that doesn't mean that is what has to happen.

I'm arguing from personal opinion (as everyone here is), and knowledge of various laws and practices. I'm happy with the classical aspect of my education, thank you very much. And for the record, I have not participated in any moderator discussions on any posts in this thread.

[NashVegas]

388. Classical Education Is Looked Down On These Days

We're sending 17 and 18 year olds to be taught technical vocations, to the tune of $4-40k per year.

Most of them will talk shit about their MBA managers and it will never dawn on them why the MBA is the one calling the shots.

[FlyingSquirrel]

266. Great. My body is not public domain.

And what's to keep 'em from letting me die on purpose 'cause the prospects are bleak, and they know they can use some of my organs somewhere else since they have my blood type etc?

[Hellenic_Pagan]

278. Dont let some people see you say that here

Youll start getting flamed like me.

You should fly over to another forum!

Fly! Be free!

Escape before they try to steal your organs!!!

[FlyingSquirrel]

281. That's a great pic. nt

[Hellenic_Pagan]

283. I love the little furry guys! n/t

[knitter4democracy]

288. No. That is completely wrong.

I realize there's a shortage of several needed organs (kidneys being the hardest to get), but that's no solution. People have the right to say no.

[muriel_volestrangler]

290. They do have the right to say no - that's what 'opt-out' means - saying 'no' (nt)

[knitter4democracy]

293. I didn't see that part. Would they make it easy to do?

Or would they make it like credit card companies and their selling your contact info on their lists? If it's easy, then I'm for it.

[theredpen]

315. Reconsider the "ease" issue

If someone takes away a right, by default, how easy does it have to be to reclaim that right, for it to be OK that it was taken in the first place?

Again, with the religious analogy: let's say that you would be considered, for all intents a purposes, a member of the Church of Scientology — and therefore required to pay whatever fees they expect from their members — unless you used an easy "opt-out" process. Would be OK to take away your religious freedom if it was sufficiently easy to get it back? Any other freedoms that you have that are equally negotiable?

[knitter4democracy]

347. I think it's more that most people want to be organ donors.

I don't personally know anyone who doesn't want to be an organ donor. The sticker in Michigan that goes on the driver's license falls off, though (mine did), and not everyone talks with family about it. So, what's the hospital to do? They have to assume you don't want to be an organ donor if the family isn't sure and if it's not on your license.

Not everyone who wants to be an organ can, depending on how and where they die and depending if their family knows and they've got their paperwork in. That means there's more of a shortage than there would be if everyone who wants to donate could.

[Nihil]

332. Egads, you understand the English language sir!

I have to applaud you for your incredible patience on this thread
in the face of sheer stupidity and/or ignorance of the English language.

It is understandable that some people saw the headline and jumped to
the conclusion that it was about the US health system rather than the
UK one but the persistence of certain people to wilfully ignore the
actual words being used is amazing.

In all seriousness, I think you exemplify the essence of patience & tolerance
(on this thread anyway!). Well done.

:applause: :toast:

[spoony]

408. And what exactly is wrong with an opt-in system?

Exactly why should we assume consent in this one instance where everything else of such legal weight in society requires affirmation?

Perhaps we should begin an opt-out assumed consent on blood donations for people who land in hospitals as well. Need blood, you know.

[muriel_volestrangler]

411. Blood is needed by a living body

while organs aren't needed by a dead one. There is a lot of difference.

What's wrong with the opt-in system is that 90% of people support organ donation, but only 25% get round to opting in.

[DemExpat]

292. Very much against opting out.

It is not an issue of selfishness or even beliefs, it is having deep concern of how I or my loved ones would be seen, or treated, while dying. I trust no one with my or my loved ones' lives. I've been around too many people in nursing homes and in longer care in hospitals who needed my constant vigilence to obtain good and consistent care to trust that everything would be done to save the life and not to let it go for someone else's use of organs if this became the more general expectancy.

Dead organs are unfit for donation, so it is that fine and uncertain line between life and death that is the ethical problem here.

As long as it is a loving and thoughtful gift I support organ donation, when it enters into policy of expectation and "shame" of opting out, it becomes repulsive to me.

DemEx

[knitter4democracy]

348. Dead organs aren't necessarily unfit for donation.

One of my good friends died last spring all of a sudden at work from a heart attack. He was still able to donate organs, as he'd wanted, after they declared him dead at the hospital, knowing he'd been dead for awhile by then.

My husband has had to ask family members if their loved one wanted to donate their organs. It's not an easy thing to ask or bring up when a loved one is dying or has just died, even though he did everything he could to keep them alive. He always respected their wishes, as did everyone he ever worked with in residency. He had a couple of patients who would've been good organ donors but whose families turned it down. That was the end of it, and they were left in peace.

I agree that maybe there might be some less than ethical doctors out there, but all of the ones I know would never even think of pressuring a family or hastening someone's death just to get their kidneys or whatever.

[DemExpat]

357. I have followed discussions about this issue here in Holland

where quite a few doctors who, understandably, have the interests of people waiting for organs in mind, are lobbying to make the criteria for death even less than it is at the moment, in order to have more viable organs to use. They stated that (some?) organs left too long were unfit for use and this, to me, is where the slippery slope begins.

The medical ethicist on the discussion was totally against this lowering the bar for pronouncement of death.

Making donorship an opt out and more "expected" rather than explicitly given is abhorrent to me.

DemEx

[knitter4democracy]

371. Oh no, the definition of death is something everyone agrees on.

Very disturbing to muck with that. Brain death is death. Period. I can see where you're coming from, then. Very disturbing.

[Infinite Hope]

310. Theft and immoral to do this without consent.

As beneficial as it would be, opt-out systems are always flawed because in order for them to be legitimate, you'd have to ensure everyone was aware of the situation and everyone was able to opt in or out without a glitch. Inevitably, many will have their organs taken when they didn't want them to be. That is sick and akin to grave robbing.

[depakid]

311. Faulty logic

In fact, it would be simple to have an opt out system- simply check the opt out box on a drivers license appication or renewal.

Problem solved.

[Infinite Hope]

312. And easier to have an opt-in process as we already have.

Which prevents any mistakes; mistakes which would be in the thousands should an opt-out process take hold. Though, frankly, an opt-out system will never take hold in the U.S.

[dipsydoodle]

331. I don't think Southampton will too pleased

http://www.girdwood.co.uk/britorg3.html

[T_i_B]

333. I'm truly amazed this thread hasn't been sent to the UK forum!

[Anarcho-Socialist]

345. I am truly amazed at the lack of the reading comprehension by many DUers

who presumed this article is about the US, and didn't bother to read the word "opt out." Then there are those posters who know nothing about the UK system and make up speculative bullshit to fill in gaps in their knowledge.

This tells me that some people on the website have little reading comprehension, or just don't bother to read past the title.

[LostinVA]

350. Or the fact that family members can object

I also think this thread has become somebody's trolling project.

[NashVegas]

362. What .. US People Are Not Allowed to Debate The Implications?

For what should happen if some crackers try to legislate us into mandated donations?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

367. Read my post again

Did I say that, no.

[NashVegas]

369. Darling, I Read You Just Fine

Have a lovely day.

[Nihil]

393. Hey, "Darling", did you misread your own post then?

You somehow have this idea that policy decisions in the UK
will affect the policy decisions in the US ...!

From past performance, the reverse has usually been the case ...
:shrug:

[NashVegas]

397. Like Universal Health Care, For Instance?

Mmmm?

[Nihil]

403. You've got it? Congratulations for proving me wrong!

And there was I concerned over the last few decades that the US policy
of private health care was going to catch on over here.

Oh ... wait ...

(Fair enough though, there will have been some things that have gone
the other way, just not lately.)
:hi:

[NashVegas]

407. ;)

:hi:

Love yer cream teas ...

[Anarcho-Socialist]

346. The Telegraph is a right-wing paper putting its own spin on this

The title is purposefully misleading for this reason. The fact is, it will require consent from the family, and the system has an opt-out for those greedy sods who think they need their precious organs when they're dead.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

364. For an "anarcho" socialist, you sure trust the goverment to tell you what to do. n/t

[Anarcho-Socialist]

366. Stop with the bullshit strawman, thank you very much

[TerwilligeRedux]

355. You can't take it with you

There can be strict protocols about harvesting, but people die. Might as well keep up the parts supply.

[RoadRage]

360. I support this 100%

My father was born with a Congenital Heart Defect in 1946. By 1985 after numerous surgeries, the only way he could survive was with a Heart Transplant. Luckily he got the transplant on April 21st, 1985. He survived 21 years.. and passed away on December 10th, 2006 from Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma.

I'm all for this!

[and-justice-for-all]

373. Your bloody dead!!

done, over and out. It is perfectly reasonable to use organs from DEAD people to improve the lives of those living, what's so hard to understand about that? There is nothing wrong with Brown's decision, it is within reason.

[Nihil]

394. Wow!

We have someone else on this thread who can read English!
Congratulations - you're in the minority!
:toast:

[spoony]

409. But apparently not correctly use it.

[LanternWaste]

380. I think this will upset

I think this will upset (at least) both the Muslim and Buddhist religions.

Buddhist: After death, the soul is believed to remain near the body and communicate with it for a period of time. An autopsy is a major disturbance of the body, and it could, therefore, distract the soul. Different teachers have different ideas about how long the soul stays by the body. An autopsy may be permitted after a religious teacher determines that the soul has left the body.

http://www.medhunters.com/articles/religionAndHealthcareBuddhism.html



Muslim: Muslims strive to bury the deceased as soon as possible after death, avoiding the need for embalming or otherwise disturbing the body of the deceased. An autopsy may be performed, if necessary, but should be done with the utmost respect for the dead.

http://islam.about.com/cs/elderly/a/funerals.htm


I'm afraid that there may be some rather dramatic ethical opposition to this as Religions have traditionally had the final say so in what may or may not be done to the corpses of their deceased adherents.

[sadiesworld]

381. Pretty soon "opting out" will be a full time job.

[lonestarnot]

399. I think Brown should be the first to donate.

[piedmont]

404. As a person who has "opted in," I would be tempted to opt out if this ever passed in the U.S.

Ownership of one's body is a line that the government should not cross, even after death.

[humbled_opinion]

405. Sure you can't mandate this...

But you should be able to make the decision for those that have not opted out... In other words you tell me your gonna take em unless I say no.... that is legit and gives everyone an opportunity to have a say..

Too many people die without stating their choice and the default has usually been they didn't want to... How do we know?

[NorthernSpy]

406. "Transplant Doctor Charged With Hastening Potential Donor's Death" (12/29/08)

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/story/231506.html


It's not safe to be worth more dead than alive.

[spoony]

410. That's the problem: we are worth more dead than alive.

And those who stand to profit are the ones given the power of life and death, and now consent, over us.