It Should Be the Norm That Our Organs are Harvested When We Die

[Toasterlad]

This occurred to me while reading what someone said in another thread. We have a terrible problem with a shortage of transplant organs in this country. Currently, we can only harvest the organs of those who agree to the procedure before their death, or those whose families agree to it after death. Why isn't that the reverse? Why don't we harvest organs unless the person specifies before they die that they DON'T want their organs donated, or UNLESS the family steps forward and specifically states that they don't want the body's organs removed?

Dead is dead. What is the point of burying or burning perfectly usable organs that could help thousands of people? If you have a religious bias against it, opt out. If you're just generally creeped out by it, opt out. But I feel it should be the norm that we take the organs, not the other way around.

BTW, since it ISN'T the norm to harvest organs, please make sure that you're registered with your DMV as an organ donor, or, failing that, make your wishes known to your family. People who need a transplant die every day, while every day, we bury thousands of perfectly usable organs. This is something easy that you can do to help someone else. And I promise you, you'll never miss them.

[LoZoccolo]

1. Um, this isn't the norm maybe because we respect people? n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. If we respected people, we'd all donate our organs.

I agree with the OP, organ donation should be standard, with an opt out option for the assholes.

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. I have a right to bequeath my property upon my death as I see fit

Please explain why I should not be allowed to do the same with my own body.

The claim that my body belongs to the state and not to myself is the essence of fascism. If my own body really is mine, it is for me (or my heirs) to decide what happens to it, not the state.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. You can.

If you don't want to donate organs, you can opt out.

[Catherine Vincent]

23. Yeah but when they opt out, folks like you call them an ahole

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. Meh.

Too bad, so sad.

:nopity:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

131. No-one has the right not to be called an ass-hole.

I would be up in arms about any plan that involved people's organs being siezed against their will.

I think that making organ donation opt-out rather than opt-in would be a very good idea indeed, and while I suspect that most of the people who opted out would be religious rather than ass-holes, I would certainly regard doing so as contemptible.

[TechBear_Seattle]

72. Why must it be "opt out" rather than the current "opt in"?

Please, provide a rational explanation rather than the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion.

[Toasterlad]

76. Because Many People Skip the Issue Altogether.

As I said elsewhere, I'm not sure how it is in every state, but in PA, you're not required to answer the question. If a response was mandatory, I'd have less of a problem with it. But by allowing people to avoid the question, it lets them off the hook: they don't have to choose. I think this is an important enough issue that people should HAVE to take a stand, one way or another.

BTW, it amuses me when you ask for an answer that doesn't appeal to emotion when this is such an emotional issue. I'd venture to say that most people die without their preference being know, and leave the decision to their families, who are, presumably, already distraught at the person's death, and not probably in the best emotional state to decide whether or not to cut up Dad and rip his organs out. If they were able to look at it rationally, and realize the wonderful difference it could make to the lives of others, there might be less of an organ shortage than we have now.

[TechBear_Seattle]

92. That is still an appeal to emotion

In Washington, a response is mandatory; when applying for a drivers license or a state issued identification card, you must check either Yes or No to the question about being an organ donor. If the person has selected No, a hospital still has the right to inquire of the next of kin if the person dies and has intact organs suitable for transplant (with legal penalties if the hospital tries to strong-arm a grieving family.)

Again, you are attempting an appeal to emotion. Provide a solid, logical basis for why the current system should be thrown out in favor of mandated organ donation, please.

[Toasterlad]

98. Excuse Me...What?

Your case in Washington is not the case everywhere. How is it an appeal to emotion that people be forced to pick A or B? If all states were like Washington, I couldn't argue that the system needs to be reworked.

However, it's my understanding that simply identifying yourself as an organ donor on you ID card is not always enough; apparently, the surviving family can overrule your intentions. I would need to know exactly what laws are in place here, but I would strongly argue in favor of the deceased's request to have his organs used trumping any objection from the family. I wonder what all the "the dead have rights!" people would say to that?

[Clark2008]

128. What states don't ask this?

I'm in Tennessee, hardly the bastion of liberalism, and they ask that question when you go to get your driver's license.

I thought it was pretty standard.

[Toasterlad]

133. I'm Not Sure...

I think ALL states ASK it, but I don't know how many require an answer. In other words, you can get your license without stating your preference one way or another, and the default is "no". I think the default should be "yes".

[PBass]

77. The assumption is that people own their own bodies

and after they die, they still own their bodies, unless they stipulate otherwise.

I understand the motivation (lets get more people to be organ donors) but this thread does it in a ham-fisted and almost offensive way (if you don't donate, there must be something wrong with you).

My favorite part of the OP: where they said "I promise"!

LOL

Please, please never become an organizer for the Democratic Party. You don't have the people skills.

[Toasterlad]

81. Thanks for Your Assessment.

The point of the OP was NOT that people should donate their organs. The point was that organ harvesting should be the norm unless people decide that they do not want to donate for religious or other reasons.

My personal appeal at the tail end that people donate their organs was just that: an appeal. Sorry it was not to your taste. As in all things I post, as in all things YOU post, it is personal opinion only.

Re: people skills - pot, kettle.

[Odin2005]

120. How can you own something when you no longer exist?

"You" are the electrical impulses in your brain, when the brain dies there is no "you" anymore.

[murloc]

158. The concept of an estate after death

is pretty well established.

While it may not be "you", certainly your estate owns your body.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

80. If you're fine with it being "opt in"

Why would you have a problem with it being "opt out?"

[TechBear_Seattle]

87. Possessiveness

I am an organ donor and have been registered as such from the first moment I was legally able to be. But that is my choice, not a mandate from some government agency.

Ultimately, the difference is one of choice and freedom. I will give freely of myself because it is my choice to make. If it were not, you can be quite certain I would arrange my death when it came to make me completely useless to the organ harvesters.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

90. You're dodging the question.

If it were opt out, you'd still have that choice and freedom. So how is it any different?

[TechBear_Seattle]

96. Do I own my body, or does the state?

That really is what it comes down to. Who has default ownership of my body?

With opt-out organ donation, the presumption is that upon my death, my body belongs to the state who may do with it as it sees fit. In order to claim ownership of my own body, I must jump through hoops and prove a claim that I am denying the state ownership of my body. Further, I must do so in a way that will stand up after my death and allow my next of kin to assert a claim of ownership for my own body over the claims of the state.

Further, when the state has a vested interest in preserving the viability of organs for transplant, it follows -- inevitably, I would assert -- that the state will pass laws to enforce that viability. You think bans on public smoking are absurd? When lungs become a "vital social resource," expect smoking to be banned permanently, everywhere. When healthy hearts, livers, kidneys, corneas and other organs are classed as "essential for the well-being of all," is too far-out to think that "lifestyle choices" which endanger the health of these organs will not be punishable by law?

The current opt-in system does not pose any of these problems.

[Toasterlad]

99. Please Join the Sci-Fi/Conspiracy Theory Posts Further Down the Thread.

If organ donation were a given instead of an exception, there would be an organ SURPLUS, not a shortage. There would be plenty of healthy organs to go around. You can continue to smoke and drink and eat to your heart's (dis)content.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

100. More baloney.

With the opt-out, your dead body belongs to decomposition, instead of potentially saving a life. It'd be the other way around with an opt in.

"You think bans on public smoking are absurd?"

Honestly? No. I think what's absurd is these loony excuses you're coming up with against an opt-out.

Frankly, it reminds me of the people who want to ban stem cell research.

[Toasterlad]

91. It's Still a Choice. Please Reread the OP.

[JanMichael]

119. Want to see how this "ownership" pans out?

ask to be just laid out in your own home, and rot in the living room.

There are laws regarding burial practices, cremation, etc. You really have about three choices. You can pretend all you want that your wishes are your own; but in reality, the government has already made most of your decisions for you.

When you die----"you" are gone. You don't have anymore "stuff" including the carbon based form you walked around in during your time here.

[ElboRuum]

47. Well, if that were the case...

I'd be an asshole, just because of the principle that it's my own goddamn body, and hands off unless I say otherwise. And me not saying anything should not be presumptive of assent.

What's after that? Forced surrogate motherhood for those not careful enough to remember to "opt out"?

{Knock on the front door}
"Hello, we're from the local hospital and we have a matter to discuss with you."
"What matter?"
"Well, first may I ask, are you currently pregnant or planning on pregnancy within the next 9-10 months?"
"Well, I, uh, no... not at present... um... why do you ask?"
"Well, you're not using your uterus right now, and there's an infertile couple who wants a baby. When can I schedule you for in vitro fertilization?"
"But... um... I don't want to be a surrogate mother."
"Oh. Dear. Well, according to your medical records, you didn't opt out of the "surrogate motherhood" option with the state. By law, and because you are fertile and in good general health, the state can force you to carry a baby for another couple should the need arise."

Of course, I'm being a little hyperbolic to prove a point here. After all, how many more things do you want the government to assume are OK unless you "opt out"? Opting in forces the government behind its walls unless you explicitly give them permission to do otherwise. This is a GOOD THING.

Opting in forces those who wish these things done to advertise their intentions and be forthcoming with details. This is not so in an opt-out model. In an opt-out model, you are considered "opted-in" unless you opt-out, and suppose you missed a memo? Say someone passes a law that says something like above, which abrogates your rights to refuse because you didn't opt-out. Your crime, of course, was missing the news that day, if it was in the news at all, but the law is the law, and now you're stuck.

That said, I'm not against organ donation at all, in fact I believe it is the morally correct thing to do. What would be nice is if the recovery of the organs were remunerated monetarily to the survivors such that it would take a bite out of the cost of the funeral. In fact, I'm sure that this would be enough of an incentive to make some on the fence finally make the decision to become organ donors.

But what I also believe is morally correct is that, in matters of this personal of a nature, it is only ever correct to ask, never to de facto assume.

If the following is morally questionable:

"Hey, did you eat that sandwich I had in the 'fridge?"
"Yeah."
"But I was going to have that for lunch today!"
"Well you didn't say I couldn't eat it, so I assumed it was OK to eat it."

Then the following is morally repugnant:

"Hey, did you just eviscerate my dead grandmother?"
"Yeah."
"But she told us she never wanted her organs recovered!"
"Well she didn't say we couldn't take them, so we assumed that it was OK to recover them."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

49. Alright then.

[Toasterlad]

50. It's Not Your Body After You Die. There IS No "YOU".

Even if you believe in an afterlife, you completely relinquish ownership of your body when you die. Your dead body has no rights.

In your one post, you argued that there was no problem because there was no difference in opting in or opting out. Now you're arguing that having to "opt out" is heavy-handed, quasi-legal government infrigement on our basic rights. Could you please reconcile those positions?

[ElboRuum]

54. If you have no rights over your body when you die.

Then how come it is they have to establish your wishes prior to death with regards to how your corpse is handled? Whoops. Then I guess you're wrong. You apparently do have rights after death.

Otherwise they wouldn't need to ask to take your organs, and they probably woudn't ask, and we wouldn't be having this conversation because it'd be the mootest of all moot points.

So, since your basic claim is refuted, have I reconciled the position?

[Toasterlad]

60. Of Course Not.

You made no attempt whatsoever to reconcile your contradictory statements. But I'll address your point anyway. Then maybe you'll attempt to clarify your position.

The arrangements you make for the disposition of your body are made BEFORE YOU DIE. Your dead body is incapable of making any arrangments of any kind. Your dead body doesn't care if it is buried, cremated, or shot out of a cannon. People die all the time without specifying their wishes as to their remains; it is NOT a requirement of death that your affairs be taken care of. Those people who die with no family and no provisions are chucked into pine boxes and buried with no ceremony at all. It is only the living who give value to the dead. The arrangements we make as a society for the disposal of the deceased are generally based on moral and - for practical matters - health-related - issues. I believe that no one SHOULD have to ask before they remove the organs from your dead body and give them to someone who can use them. However, in deference to human sensibilites and decency, I'm more than willing to give people the option to say, "No thank you...I'd rather my organs rot in the ground or be burned to ash than go to some poor child who'll die unless he gets them. See you in heaven!"

[ElboRuum]

153. You know, you are so right.

I did make no attempt. I didn't think it was necessary. I'd rather thought that the idea that whether you make it known or not, you have the right to decide how you wish to be disposed of... ergo, the "dead" do have rights, and that government or law should be given the burden of proof as to ascertaining that fact without some de facto assumption, should be enough to shoot enough holes in your passionate conjecture as to warrant no attempt.

If you insist on making my points for me, I can just sit back and wait for you to argue yourself into oblivion.

If you don't believe me, allow me to point to your own words:

"I believe that no one SHOULD have to ask before they remove the organs from your dead body and give them to someone who can use them. However, in deference to human sensibilites and decency, I'm more than willing to give people the option to say, "No thank you...I'd rather my organs rot in the ground or be burned to ash than go to some poor child who'll die unless he gets them. See you in heaven!"

Well, OK God, so mote it be, I guess. And so kind and generous a God to give us the alternative. But you still haven't argued why opt-out is better than opt-in. This all exists, except that a person must say "OK, Sure" instead of "No, Thank You." Maybe with your reasoning, we can have other dynamics in our society that are opt-in become opt-out. The only thing I can think of is that you're suggesting that with opt-out, you can "trick" more people into giving up their innards, which you can't do with an opt-in system.

Maybe I'll stroll into your open garage and take your lawn mower without asking. When you wonder where the thing is, you'll come to me and ask why I took it, and I'll say, with moral conviction and fearless righteousness, that you weren't using it and someone else needed to do some mowing, so this IS FOR THE GREATER GOOD.

Or perhaps, like I've stated before to another respondent, perhaps it would be a good idea take all of the females of our society who are currently not pregnant and in good health and force them to be surrogates for couples who can't have children. What, you've got a problem with that? It's not like they were using their uterus for anything, and it IS FOR THE GREATER GOOD.

Or possibly, credit card companies can automatically sign us up for credit lines, and we can just waste postage opting out of them, too.

The whole concept of opt-out is predatory because it banks on malaise and lazyness to sign us up for shit we would otherwise seriously think about before involving ourselves with or acting upon. It masquerades as a fairness, but it really just opens up a way for forces external to the decision-making process of the individual to hide behind an implied consent where none, quite possibly, would never have otherwise been given. And this, my friend, IS NEVER FOR THE GREATER GOOD.

The whole IDEA that another person has some right to make your decisions for you if you don't explicitly make them yourself, simply because it IS FOR THE GREATER GOOD, is so frustratingly oppositive to the freedom we claim to hold so dear, that I can't even speak about it without going into fits of apoplectic rage. I think about all of the freedom we lost over the past 7... aw, hell, let's go a step further and say 40... years because of things that were supposedly for the greater good. Executive overreach. The Patriot Act. Free speech in carefully placed zones of ineffectuality. Etc.

Just about every freedom we've lost over the years or had rendered functionally moot has been so from travelling down a well-worn road. The road to hell paved with good intent. Your intention is good. Your methods are questionable.

And people wonder why their freedoms are eroded so badly. It's because people seriously entertain these sorts of ideas without truly considering what the consequence could be to them.

What's really awe-inspiring about this is that this is a proposed adjustment to a system THAT SERVES ITS PURPOSE WELL, ONE THAT ISN'T BROKEN!

[LoZoccolo]

74. Everyone has an option to do that already.

It's democracy in action, rather than communism.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

102. Communism?

Did I stumble into a time warp and whine up in 1952?

It's not democracy that's keeping people from organ donation, Joe, it's laziness, paranoia, and general assholery.

[Toasterlad]

104. "Joe"

Now THAT was funny.

You rock, Borny. :headbang:

[speakclearly]

155. Not only that....................

We have a lot of oil in our bodies! Whatever organs are not harvested for others, we could then use the other remains to extract oils for use in fuels or other products that use petroleum. We are running out of oil (reseves will last only 20-50 more years) and this is a renewable resource! Governments and communities provide lots of support to individuals that makes their life better, so it is only right to expect that after their death, they can "give back" to the community.

Any solid products that might be left after we harvest organs, skins, and bone, and oil can then be reprocessed as organic material for use in feertilizing/growing non-meat products for feeding the starving of the world! Imagine how wonderful that would be! That even after we die, we can be contributing to making the world better for the less fortunate!

'Course, those "sicko" right-wing fundementalist wack-jobs would probably find some "biblical" reason to oppose this humanitarian proposal, but that should not be permitted to stand like a rock in the road and prohibit progress. Let the "fundies" opt out, but all right-thinking and compassionate people can choose the higher moral ground!

We could call it "Cadavers for Conservation" or something catchy like that! I think this could really catch on!

[DangerDave921]

56. So silly

If you have no rights after you are dead, then why even include an opt-out provision? You have no right to opt-out if you truly have no rights. Just let the government take whatever it wants.

What a bizarre idea. Are we individuals with any rights? Or are we just raw material for whatever the government wants to do with us?

And yes, I am an organ donor and would encourage all to become one. But it is MY CHOICE whether to do it or not.

[Toasterlad]

64. We Are Individuals When Alive. We Are Corpses When Dead.

Dead things don't have rights. The disposal of the dead is based on the culture and mores in which they die, not on any "rights". There are laws in the US that govern the disposal of corpses, put in place to address matters of public health and basic decency. Assumed organ donation does not counter any "rights" of the dead, especially if one has the option to request not to participate.

It is absolutely your choice to be an organ donor. It would STILL be your choice if we made organ donation the norm rather than the exception. The only thing that would change would be that a lot more people would be alive.

[DangerDave921]

68. Illogical

Sorry, but your argument is illogical. If you have no rights when you are dead, then an opt-out option is completely superfluous. If you have no rights, then the government should just announce it will be taking your organs once you are dead. The fact that you provide for an opt-out option indicates you realize that there is some right to decide what to do with one's own body after death.

Try to run this idea up the flagpole and see what reaction you'd get from the public. My guess is 85% would be against it, from both parties.

Also, if we have no rights when we die, I guess anyone can go into a graveyard, dig up a corpse, and take the body?

[Toasterlad]

73. No One Asks the Dead Permission NOW

The laws and arrangements are made by the living, REGARDING the dead. The dead don't decide not to give up their organs. Living people make those decisions. DEAD PEOPLE DON'T CARE WHAT YOU DO TO THEM BECAUSE THEY CAN'T. That's what being dead means. There are laws against grave-robbing, but those laws are in place to protect the health and sensibilities of the living, not the dead.

If it were up to me, the government WOULDN'T ask for permission to harvest organs; they'd do it, and help people who need them. Since many people have a problem with that, I'm willing to give them the choice to say "NO, don't take my organs...I need them while I'm rotting to dust in the ground."

Just based on the responses in this thread, it seems more people are in favor of the assumed organ donation than not. Granted, these are people with a more liberal - not to say enlightened - bent than others, but I still think your 85% is quite high. And if the people are made to understand that it's their CHOICE, I doubt very many would have a problem with it.

[DangerDave921]

84. but

But it's their choice right now. That apparently doesn't satisfy you.

Your method is the same choice that the old Columbia Record and Tape Club gave you. Remember that? "If you want this month's selection, do nothing. It will automatically be sent to you." CRTC didn't want you to have choice. They wanted to make the choice for you, unless you took the affirmative step to send back that stupid card. God, I hated that card. Like I really wanted Billy Joel's new crap album. But there it was in my mailbox, with a bill for $18.99.

I prefer TRUE choice, i.e., you sign up if you want to donate your organs.

Hope you don't implement a necropheliac program. I may forget to send in my opt-out notice and end up getting boned after I die. LOL

[Toasterlad]

I'm Not Satisfied With People Dying For No Reason

That's what it comes down to.

And please with your Columbia Record Club analogy. I'm talking about a conscious choice you need to make ONCE. If you want to donate, do nothing. If you don't want to donate, say you don't. You don't have any further obligation. Sounds like a true choice to me.

If you guys still don't like that, how about this? The question itself could be mandatory; that is, you would need to answer yes or no before getting your license. At least that way, people would have to think about it.

BTW, if you do get boned after you die, don't worry...you won't feel a thing.

[scarletwoman]

139. That's an idiotic statement. People don't die "for no reason", they die because ALL living things

are MORTAL. ALL living things die.

LIVING "for no reason" is what's really a waste -- dying is just what happens as a result of being alive in the first place.

[ElboRuum]

2. Don't understand the problem...

If you can opt out, how much more difficult is it to opt in? Every time I get my driver's license renewed they ask me if I want to be an organ donor. I generally have to say "yes" or "no". There is no "can I get back to you?"

Not that I disagree with the importance of organ donation, but what's the beef? What? That we lack a cultural admonition for being buried whole?

[Toasterlad]

25. I Think It Differs From State to State

However, I'm reasonably sure that in Pennsylvania, it's not mandatory to answer the question, and the default is no. I'm just saying that I think the default should be yes. The onus should be on the people who DON'T want to donate, as opposed to those who do.

[Captain Hilts]

4. We were asked when Dad died. And we told them to take whatever they could use.

As a submariner who was always scavenging and trading with other subs for parts, he would have wanted it that way. I think they used his eyes.

[blondeatlast]

5. I'm on a waiting list (with nothing close to a dire need yet) and I respectfully disagree.

What needs to be done is exactly what you are saying, though--make people aware that it sin't SOP and that if they don't want family squabbles and lawyers involved, they need to be proactive.

I'd love to see it handled like blood drives and community fund drives are at workplaces, for instance.

[northzax]

26. I hate workplace based drives

for a multitude of reasons, I cannot donate blood (although I am an organ donor, for what it's worth) my medical history is my business, not that of my colleagues, when I am pressured to donate at work, and I can't, it can get awkward. I am comfortable enough to make jokes about tranny hookers in bangkok, but a lot of people aren't. but even if I didn't have a good reason, I shouldn't have to defend my decisions about what I do with my body to my boss, right?

[blondeatlast]

28. Okay, bad example, perhaps, but awareness is important. And I'm damn glad someone

donated blood for whatever reason...

[northzax]

148. oh, indeed, and I once did

every 8 weeks, and would still be doing it, if I weren't banned from doing so by the Red Cross (a combination of Malaria and Mad Cow disease throws me right out, note, I don't have either malaria or Mad Cow, but I am in high risk groups for both based on places I have lived (the UK) and traveled)

I am all for making it as easy as possible to donate, and for incentives, even from workplaces, to do so (sure, you can take an hour at lunch and show your card once every two months, great idea) and public campaigns to make it default behaviour. I am sensitive to the pressure not because of myself, since it's no big deal to say "Hey, I lived in England during the time Mad Cow was believed to enter the human food chain (the early 80s), so I can't give" without lying. I had a good friend at another job who was not out of the closet publicly yet, it was a catty workplace, and people talked all the time, he felt pressured to donate blood even though he was ineligible by the rules, so he would actually go through the whole process and then put the "do not use my blood" sticker on it. all that simply so he wouldn't have to deal with gossipy coworkers, a waste of time and resources. uncomfortable for him, for no good reason.

I'd like to see lower insurance rates for people who donate, not much, $5/month maybe. but something like that for blood donors.

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. I disagree with you

I agree that folks should be encouraged to be donors, but I am hesitant to live in a world where people can effectively be harvested as needed. I've read too many science fiction books where people get killed in an unsolved hit and run or similar accident with surprise! their organs ending up in the body of a rich and/or powerful person who is surprise! as perfect a tissue match as could be wished for.

[greenbriar]

17. exactly why I don't donate

and won't unless it is family

[Toasterlad]

29. And That Can't Happen Now Because...?

If there's a rich and powerful person who's willing to kill me for my perfect-match liver, why would he not just because I'm not a registered organ donor? If he's willing and resourceful enough to murder me, and then pull some flim-flam to get my organs, I'm pretty sure he's willing and resourceful enough to kill me in such a way that my body is never recovered, allowing him access to whatever he wants.

In other words, it wouldn't matter to your hypothetical rich and powerful person whether I was an organ donor or not.

[mentalsolstice]

141. I don't know any rich and powerful people

...hell, I don't even know my own blood type. So I can't really expect some $100,000 porsche owner to run me off the road for my liver (which I've been using a lot of lately).

Really! I've got it marked on my DL that I'm an organ donor, with specific instructions to my husband and parents...take what is useful, cremate the rest.

I would vote for "opt out". I'm 46 and I've been to 5 funerals where I knew specifically what was donated (nothing). Two of those involved persons in their 90s. And as far as I know there was no donation in the case of the other three, mainly because it had not been talked about, the person was young, it was too sudden, etc.,...

[Toasterlad]

30. Dupe n/t

[GeorgeGist]

37. Science fiction ...

is still FICTION.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. I say we base all our policies on paranoid sci fi fantasies.

Let's round up all women named Sarah Conner and put them somewhere safe.

[Kingshakabobo]

55. LOL....you crack me up,

Sarah Conner :rofl:

[Madspirit]

62. ROFL

Just btw, did you know they are coming out with a new show based on her life...The Sarah Conner Chronicles... Mmmm I love my SciFi.

Lee

[TechBear_Seattle]

71. Yup

Widespread commercial air travel is just science fiction, seeing as it was integral to several stories by H. G. Wells. Jules Verne invented the nuclear submarine in 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea and fiction it remained. A world-spanning network of computers open to everyone for the sharing of information is the fictional creation of Isaac Asimov in the 1950s. But those are neither here nor there.

Science fiction serves to ask, "What if...?" Among other things, it allows authors to pose difficult social questions and explore how individuals and societies react to those questions. I have never seen a speculative future where enforced donation of body parts, regardless of personal or family wishes, turned out to be a good thing. Mandatory organ donation has been consistently portrayed as corrupt, even fascist, one of many elements where the individual exists only to serve the State and those who run the State. Such unanimity among speculative fiction authors -- a very diverse group of people who make a living by posing situations like the one you present -- does not bode well for your cause.

Unless you can come up with a better rationale than "It ought to be done the way I say it should be done," we have nothing more to say to one another on the matter.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

75. Jules Verne invented the nuclear submarine?

Goodness gracious. Too bad he didn't take out the patent.

[TechBear_Seattle]

85. That one I got wrong, sorry

I started marshalling resources to support my claim and found I was incorrect. I hate when that happens. :eyes:

The Nautilus as described by Verne in his 1890 novel Twenty Thousand Leagues Under The Sea was powered by electrical batteries, with the sodium for the batteries taken directly from the salt of the surrounding sea. The first nuclear submarine was the U.S.S. Nautilus (hull number SSN-571), christened January 21, 1954 by First Lady Mamie Eisenhower and commissioned Sept. 30, 1954. Until the commissioning of this submarine, Verne's Nautilus was the most technologically advanced submarine in either literature or real life.

My confusion came from the apparent fact that most screen adaptations of Twenty Thousand Leagues Under The Sea (and versions of the story derived from various movies) described Nautilus as nuclear powered, a tribute to the US ship and in the spirit of Verne's advanced technology. Other literary adaptations such as the comic books / graphic novel The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (and the movie made from them) followed suit.

Mea culpa :blush:

But that does not change the point I was trying to make.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

86. Oh, the point you're trying to make is silly too.

"Jules Verne predicted the submarine in his novel, therefore that stuff from the movie Coma is going to happen."

That's one of them there non sequitors.

[TechBear_Seattle]

88. Your logical fallacy, not mine

I was merely pointing out that the assertion of it being "merely science fiction" in no way dismisses the point I was making. I would have thought the second paragraph of my post, about the unanimity among speculative fiction writers that mandated organ donation was a bad idea, would have made that clear.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

89. LOL

Sci fi writers are unanimous on organ donation? My oh my!

[Madspirit]

65. Lesbian Blood

The only paranoid SciFi fantasy I have is...

As a lesbian I am least likely to get AIDS. Some blood banks even specifically solicit Lesbian blood. I have these nightmares about...well...like Coma...they just keep a room full of drugged up lesbians and take our blood when needed. It replenishes and we would be a never-ending source of clean blood. ahhhhhhhhh

Then I wake up and realize it's just Science Fiction and as someone pointed out, Science Fiction is still fiction.

I think the default should be "Donate". If someone doesn't want to badly enough, they should check the "No".

Lee

[Raine]

126. TOTALLY agree

I don't trust people in charge, I couldn't go along with such a plan.

[PetrusMonsFormicarum]

7. RECYCLE!

I don't know who would want my lungs, though--after all these years you could dry 'em out, roll 'em up and smoke 'em!

In all seriousness, I am in agreement, especially when one considers that our cemeteries are practically Superfund sites due to all the formaldehyde and other corpse-pickling agents.

[Lerkfish]

9. in the abstract, I'm all for people donating, but not for me, realistically.

I'm a diabetic cancer survivor, among other health problems, and I would not feel good about any of MY organs being placed in someone, and possibly exposing the patient to further risk of disease unnecessarily.

Otherwise, if I was in the picture of health, I'd sign up.


but you have to understand and be aware that not everyone would agree with harvesting organs as the default, for either personal and/or cultural and religious reasons.

[Miss Chybil]

10. Autonomy is autonomy.

It's not your choice, or anybody else's, what to do with my body.

[Toasterlad]

34. Once You Die, It's Not Your Body. It's Medical Waste. Sorry to Be Blunt.

But you'd still have a choice.  You could choose NOT to be a
donor.  All I'm saying is people should have to choose NOT to
be, rather than choose TO be an organ donor.

[Miss Chybil]

48. That's your opinion.

Others might not believe their bodies are medical waste. If you have no control over your own remains, or those of your loved ones, then what would keep anyone from using you in a cadaver lab, or using your skin for lampshades? You are simply garbage, anyway, right? Those are your values and you are entitled to them, but your values do not trump everyone else's. I work in a cadaver lab everyday. I admire the people who bequeath their bodies to science, but it is not a choice I would make for myself. I do believe in organ donation, but I don't feel the "opt-out" system would respect the autonomy of the human being - not medical waste - as much as the opt-in. What if you don't have time to make that choice, or to fill out that form?

[Toasterlad]

53. You Could Make That Choice Right Now.

Your argument is moral, not practical. As you work in a cadaver lab, you must concede that a dead body is not a human being. You are correct that the VALUE we assign to the body is a matter of opinion. But opinion aside, why does "opt out" mean less respect for a dead body than "opt in"? Both are a free choice. If anything, assumed organ donation shows more value for human beings by helping to keep the living alive. Quite frankly, anyone who opposes organ donation has more regard for the dead than they do for the living.

[Miss Chybil]

115. There are places in the world where individual autonomy is not valued.

The citizens there are treated as government property. Thankfully, we have not yet crossed that threshold.

My morals do not preclude yours, nor yours mine. If I choose to give my body - which is the only thing I truly own - to another, either to save their life, or to enlighten them to science, that is my choice. The choice should not be made for me and then left for me to say I don't want to do it. You can layer onto this, the problem of dealing with those who are mentally incompetent, minors and those sentenced to die by the state.

Another thing to consider... If the state has full rights to your body after death, what is to keep them from asserting the same rights while you are alive - or, deciding you are worth more to "the people" dead? What is to keep the state from performing forced abortions, or denying the right to abortion. What is to keep them from forcing you to take medications you do not want to take? We have fought long and hard, and will are still fighting, for the right to make our own decisions about our bodies. I am not ready to give that up. I will protect my right to make decisions, as opposed to having them made for me and then me having to fill out a form in order to keep what is already mine.

How would you feel if on the day of your birth a house was picked out for you and financing arranged? (You would owe millions by the time you moved in.) Would that be alright as long as you could opt-out of it on your 18th birthday? What if, you decided you didn't like the house, it's location, or the terms? What if, all your friends, family and co-workers couldn't understand why on earth you wouldn't want to live there? What if, they made you feel stupid, or selfish for not being grateful for having had the house chosen for you? What if, you were ostracized for being so arrogant as to want to make your own decisions about where you live? What if, sometime in your first 18 years, you had some kind of religious epiphany and truly believed with your entire being that that particular house was evil, or somehow against your own conscience? What if you put off, in indecision or under duress, signing the opt-out paper by the deadline and you were forced to live in the house forever? What if you simply forgot to sign it before it was too late?

Moral arguments are as legitimate as any other.

[Toasterlad]

121. I'm Sorry...I'm Talking About Real Life.

I'm not particularly interested in paranoid fantasies. You can "suppose" ANYTHING happening out of ANY law that gets passed. That doesn't make it logical. Nor does the fact that it's a "moral" debate make it logical. There is no reason to assume that just because the onus of donating ones organs is shifted from the "agrees" to the "disagrees" that the government will now control your life. The choice hasn't changed. It is STILL A CHOICE. The ONLY difference is that now, people who were on the fence about it are now having their organs used rather than having their organs wasted. If people feel - logically or illogically - opposed to it, they can simply say "no".

That's all.

[Miss Chybil]

137. If you want to donate, donate. That's all. nt

[Madspirit]

146. EVERYTHING You Mention

Everything you mention is stuff that could possibly be done to you while you are still alive. I contend that there really is no YOU after you die. I don't see rules made for the dead leading to rules made for the living unless this society becomes so damaged we might as well lean over and kiss our asses good-bye anyway. I think it's immoral to bury a kidney when it might keep another human alive.
Lee

[Madspirit]

70. Then check the "No".

It's simple really. Making it the default to donate would not force anyone to donate.

It simply would mean if you don't want to you check the "no".

Lee

[Miss Chybil]

117. Read my post #115. nt

[TwilightGardener]

12. From my ICU days, the new PC term is "recovered", not "harvested".

[JVS]

36. Pilfered

[TwilightGardener]

38. BWAH! I like that one.

[Uben]

13. Here's an idea

...and they might already do it.......harvest organs from those who are indigent and need help with burial expenses.

I'm pro-choice on this subjest, just like abortion. One should have his or her own say as to donation. Persoanally, I am donating anything that can be used....eyes, heart, kidneys, skin, etc. I have even considered donating my body to science (for use as a cadaver for med students). Why not, I damn sure aint gonna be needin it, and if can make someone elses's life better, go for it!

(I have opted to retain possession of my soul, as it has already been promised to a greater being)

[Xipe Totec]

14. No

Not only no, but hell no.

It's my body, not yours; I'll do what I goddamn please with it, not what anybody else tells me to do with it.

If dead is dead, then so be it. People whose organs fail are going to die. So are we all. Dead is dead.

We do not want to create a society where human beings are treated like meat bags.

[Toasterlad]

40. Human Bodies, Not Human Beings.

And if you'd read the OP, you'd realize I was advocating a CHOICE. If you don't want your organs donated, say so. But the default would be that they would be used to help someone else.

[Xipe Totec]

66. Taking without explicit permision is stealing

Why don't we make it so that you can take somebody's car, unless there's a sign that says "do not take my car". After all, it's just parked there not being used...

[Toasterlad]

69. *Sigh*

Your analogy is flawed beyond human comprehension. But I'll just point out three things:

1. If putting up a sign that said "don't steal this car" was all it would take to stop getting people to steal their cars, I'm pretty sure most people would "opt" for the sign.
2. People don't generally steal bodies for a ride. Just how many necrophiliacs do you think there ARE, anyway?
3. Presumably, someone's eventually going to come back for the car. No one's ever going to use the dead body again.

We're talking about a voluntary program that would save more lives on a daily basis. If you want to be selfish, you should have to SPECIFY that you're being selfish, rather than have your selfishness assumed.

[Xipe Totec]

78. It can't be voluntary, if it's compulsory

It's touching to see how generous people can be with somebody else's property. My body, my property.

And please don't try to pin your moralistic labels on me; I have donated over 20 gallons of blood in my lifetime; that's over 160 individual VOLUNTARY donations.

Selfish indeed.

[Toasterlad]

79. I'm Sorry You Refuse to See My Point.

I am also a blood donor. I still think it's selfish to not donate your organs when you die.

[Xipe Totec]

82. I see your point, I just don't agree with it

I think it is morally reprehensible to seek to profit from another person's tragedy.

[Toasterlad]

83. Whoa

You think it's morally reprehensible for someone else to live by being given the organ of a person who died? Is that really what you're saying?

[Occulus]

154. You're just funny

Your body, your property? Hmm. I'd say you don't own anything after you're dead.

"And please don't try to pin your moralistic labels on me"

How about greed? That's what this is.

"My body, my property." Even after death?

I call that greed. Petty, pointless greed, at that.

[Xipe Totec]

159. Oh really?

Cry me a river, and MAKE ME donate my organs.

Greed? How about coveting somebody else's property? My estate belongs to my heirs, that includes my body.

You want them? Talk to them. But you better hurry because the standing order is cremate my body after death.

I'm donating my body to plants.

[Miss Chybil]

138. Your attitude is exactly the reason the system should remain opt-in.

You are trying to force your values upon the rest of society and should they balk, you begin to belittle. That is not the way to respect the rights of your neighbors. You are free to give as much of yourself away as you please, but it is not your place to designate the rest of the world organ donors.

[Toasterlad]

144. I'll Make You a Deal.

I'll stop pushing my values on the rest of the world if you can satisfactorily explain to me how refusing to donate your organs is not selfish. Remember, I didn't say that people don't have the RIGHT to be selfish. I only said it was selfish not to donate your organs. If I truly didn't "respect the rights of my neighbors", I would be suggesting that the system be changed so that no one had a choice in the matter.

As far as the post I was responding to goes, I wasn't truly attempting to "belittle" anyone, anymore than I believe the poster was attempting to "belittle" me. He said my argument was flawed and produced an analogy to dispute it. I thought his analogy was flawed, and posted a response to refute THAT. I don't think our give and take is a reason to leave the system "opt in", thus killing more people.

[noonwitch]

15. I registered specific organs

They can have my kidneys, my liver, my corneas, but nothing that can be seen from the outside. No cremation, either, I want to be buried in my black velvet dress.

[1620rock]

24. Well, look at it like this. A part of you lives on after death. And in

addition you generate some really good karma for whatever comes next. Everybody wins.

[Occulus]

156. .

"I want to be buried in my black velvet dress."

:wow:

And it will help you... how? What will that do for you?

[jgraz]

16. I agree completely!!!

All this harvesting of organs before people die has GOT TO STOP!

[madokie]

18. I like that,

hell maybe they'll be some sense of presence with the organ after the transplant who knows.

[rucky]

19. This is one of those no-brainer topics to me...

that i can't believe people argue against.

[bleedingheart]

20. as a transplant recipient (tissue)

I think that people should volunteer to do so...not everyone is so keen on it and I think making it mandatory would make some people uneasy.

Not all organs are usable..depends on the nature of the death and the health of the donor...

Generally the people who make the best donors are the ones who we hate to think of dying...the young...

I think that most hospitals do a good job of trying to convince folks to donate, however religous beliefs and superstitions and even urban myths have been the biggest hurdle to overcome...

[ret5hd]

21. Agree 100%

[LostInAnomie]

22. I think there should be implied consent when it comes to organ donation.

You should have to opt out if you don't want your organs harvested.

[JVS]

33. When I first read your post I was thinking of implied consent the way...

it means that if you are unconscious that you automatically consent to the paramedics taking care of you. I imagined a world where people were afraid to sleep, lest their organs be taken.

[JVS]

31. Fuck that

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

32. But also understand

that if you have certain blood diseases, like Hepatitus C, these diseases would be carried to the new donar. My husband told the DMV to remove his organ donar status because of this.

[The2ndWheel]

35. The best option would be do away with the choice

Under penalty of prison.

As we make the choice to "opt out" the norm, the state/corporation/whatever, continues to acquire more and more control. Until one day, everyone lives and dies for the state/corporation/whatever.

Stay with the opt in.

[JVS]

39. LOL

[BlooInBloo]

41. It should be opt-out, rather than opt-in.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

43. I would love to donate mine, but they can't be used

I'm on a medication that has basically ruined all my parts and pieces for redistribution. I can't even give blood any more. :cry:

[ChazII]

93. Same here

I am thinking of donating my body so researchers can learn more about my genetic disorder. As it is now, my body can't be used to to help the living.

[Forkboy]

44. When I die they can do anything they want with my body.

Use it,eat it,fuck it.Or a combination of all three!

I could care less...I'll be dead. :shrug:

[terisan]

45. Because people would be killed for organs, eugenics would gain popularity.

death penalty would be increased.

[Toasterlad]

46. That's Quite a Leap. Care to Elaborate?

[NashVegas]

51. While We're At It, Let's Have Pregnant Women Opt Out of Abortion

After all, the earth is over-populated. People die of hunger everyday, there's no way the earth can support us all.

[Lorien]

52. Why would anyone not like the idea of having some part of them live on?

I've read of plenty of cases where people who have organ transplants develop in interests and tastes, then later discover that those interests and tastes were passions of the organ's original owner. Weird stuff, but I kind of like the idea (as long as the donor was a decent person).;-)

[tammywammy]

57. No

There are reasons people do not donate their bodies, whether medical or religious. There should be more encouragement and information out there to get people to register to donate...including having DMVs be required to ask when people get their driver's license or renew.

[laruemtt]

58. i'm not even allowed to give blood

because of disseminated Lyme disease. i'd hate to give an unsuspecting somebody else this....

[KurtNYC]

59. ok, let's see..who can afford transplanted organs?

Don't the wealthy have ENOUGH privilege in this society? Now you want them to be able to live off of dead poor people? If any such law passed then the next step would be for the rich to make it illegal for poor people to do anything which would degrade the organs which the rich would essentially own.

Low income people are not a farm for those who can afford $100,000+ operations. And what about respecting other people's religious beliefs?

In a more even society with equal access to health care maybe, but in our increasingly stratified, increasingly fascist society it is an abhorrant idea.

[rucky]

94. Supply & Demand, dude.

If more people donated, costs would go down.

[Rosemary2205]

105. Um, they don't charge for the organ.

[pitohui]

118. they charge several hundred thousand dollars for the surgery

so it's b.s. to say they don't charge for the organ, w.out the organ there is no road show

they are making huge profits on transplants and transplant publicity, and yet the families of the donor get ZILCH

[Rosemary2205]

157. More organ availability

is not likely to make the surgery and aftercare any cheaper. "Supply and demand" - More supply will not reduce the cost in this situation.

[CRH]

61. It should be the norm, that people accept death as a natural occurrence, ...

when their bodies wear out. If people want to preserve life on this planet, they can start by not over populating. 6.6 billion people is already well over the sustainable 'primary life budget', on this planet.

Think, energy, food, water, housing, -- and more people living longer flies in the face of all logic and compassion.

There is nothing to fear in death, other than your ego.

[Madspirit]

63. The default should be "donate"

If you don't want to donate just check..."No". It's not difficult.

Lee

[The2ndWheel]

97. If a central authority has power by default

Then that central authority can write laws making it a punishable offense to check "no", or take "no" out of the equation completely. As an example, we can't not pay taxes without going to prison or paying a hefty fine(if they catch you). We can't "opt out" of paying for the war in Iraq.

That being said, as with the general trend of history, it will go from opt in, to opt out, to mandatory harvesting(not my word). The system increasingly comes first, and we will live and die for the productive capacity of the state, the corporation, or the corporate state(if there is a difference). The state, the corporation, the corporate state, owns more and more of life. There is less and less opportunity to check "no" for anything. You can check "no", but it comes with greater and greater risk. Be it political, economic, social, etc. You can more easily become disenfranchised, poor, and an outcast by checking "no". Not to mention the central authority can take away your time by throwing you in prison for not accepting the default position.

I thought that was what people have been fighting against for all these years; assumed power, power by default, power by decree, power because someone said so. Maybe it was just power held by the wrong people that was hated. As long as the power lies in the right hands, I guess it's not so bad.

[Madspirit]

103. One Boatload of Paranoia

Your dire prediction is certainly possible but if our system gets that bad, we're all shit out of luck anyway.

We ARE talking about, in this thread, it still being voluntary.
Lee

[The2ndWheel]

150. It may very well be

I could be completely wrong. However, once a central authority has power by default, that authority will do whatever it has to do to survive, and expand its reach. Look at Washington D.C.(or any capital of an empire) as a good example.

It's voluntarily the way it is now. It can be voluntarily then to opt out. But the process of globally integrated centralization(i.e. globalization) eventually leads to the choice no longer existing. We already have to(for the most part, and for now) work for the corporations so that we can buy the products they own and sell us, and we already have to keep the state running(we don't get to pick and choose what we want to pay for...like Iraq, and the next war, and the next war, and the next war) under penalty of force.

Both of those institutions have massive power, by default(a power acquired over a long time), over the lives of human and non-human alike. My guess is that the system will become opt out(until the next step). It sort of has to. As much as the whole system is sort of running by itself, it does still need people in some capacity. We may just be cogs, utilitarian objects, but at least we're still needed.

[The Inquisitive]

67. too much "should" in this thread

You don't should on me, I won't should on you.

[guitar man]

95. I just hope

...some poor soul doesn't wind up getting my liver....I used it pretty hard when I was younger. :silly:

[Swamp Rat]

101. "We've come for your liver."

:)

[baby_mouse]

106. That is the most EVIL SIN of ALL

Evil evil evil you must turn to god, now is the time to come to Jesus, cumbayaaa milord cumbayaaa, it's BABY JESUS'S liver and it is HOLY and your post has made him CRY.

Must I include that stupid sarcasm tag or was I extreme enough this time?

[Toasterlad]

109. I'm Sorry, Baby Jesus.

[muriel_volestrangler]

107. Why move to an opt-out system? Because people don't get round to opting in

Most agree that the organ donor shortage is a serious issue. But while nearly 90 per cent of the UK population say they'd be willing to donate their organs after death, only about 20 per cent of people have actually put their names on the NHS Organ Donor Register.

So would an opt-out system help the shortage? A report in the journal Science in 2003 found that European countries with opt-out policies showed a 16.2 per cent increase in the number of donors.

A similar 1998 study in the medical journal The Lancet found that a shift to the opt-out system in Spain, Austria and Belgium had increased the number of donors in all three countries.

Other countries such as Australia, which has the lowest rate of organ donation in the Western world, are now considering a change in the law so if a person has registered their wish to donate through the Organ Donor Register, it's legally valid. The Australian government is sending every household an organ donation consent form to try and increase the numbers of those registering.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/donation/factfilesod_comparisons.shtml

[Toasterlad]

108. Thank You!

I had no idea that there were actual statistics on this stuff...I was pretty much thinking out loud. Thanks for the link.

[baby_mouse]

111. Muriel! You're a mod!

When did that happen?

[muriel_volestrangler]

112. Cor blimey! I was wondering what the grey thing was!

:D

A new set of mods started about 3 weeks ago.

[baby_mouse]

114. A keyhole, perhaps?

Yay, go you!

[dysfunctional press]

110. but if they take my eyes- how will i see my parents in heaven...?

:evilgrin:

[blondeatlast]

113. Does the name Terri Schiavo ring a bell? As someone on a waiting list, I'm utterly opposed

to this idea.Sign your cards and let your family know your wishes. Period.

Keep the government off of my body--before, during, and after I breathe.

[pitohui]

116. no way jose

i'm sorry but i'm not giving the medicine for profit society one more reason to keep me alive on a machine when my brain is dead so they can 1) charge my family/insurer for an extra day of torture and 2)THEY can be heavily compensated for life saving surgery and yet not share one fucking tiny dime of profit with MY family

if my organs are of value, pay for them, i'm not asking anyone for their organs, because of my insurance, i know full well that if my organs fail i'll be left for dead and i'm damn well not having myself taken apart so some rich fuck can live ten years longer when me and mine don't get that opportunity

if we had universal health care here, if i felt all had the same chance at the organs, it would be different

as it is NO, and how dare you take my body parts and profit from them after i'm dead when i think of all the opportunities i was cheated of in life

don't make me out to be worth more dead than alive

surely any sensible person can see where it will lead? we already know that some people are being called "dead" before brain death in order to seize their organs -- and all for the profit of the hospitals and transplant surgeons

no way, not gonna happen until there are SERIOUS changes in this society

dead is not dead with today's technology, and sometimes people can be brought back or not brought back, why should i give anyone the opportunity to profit from not bringing me back simply because the cute kid on the list is cuter than i am, sorry, it's my life and my organs, i'm keeping them

[NotGivingUp]

151. big money in body parts...i agree with you 100%. and that's exactly the way it works.

bunch of money-grubbing assholes out there just waiting to profit off of you every which way you can.

[robcon]

122. My organs are my own.

I don't owe them to anyone. The government or organ-donor organizations have no right whatsoever to take them from my corpse without permission.

I think the OP has it backward... the rule, correctly, is: no organ-harvesting without permission.

The best plan is to promote organ donation.

[Carolina]

123. You are not quite right, dead is not dead

Vascular organs (kidneys, livers, hearts, etc.) must be harvested from the living dead, i.e. those whose vital signs are sustained by life support systems but have been declared brain dead.

Typical cadaveric donors are victims of what is ultimately fatal trauma, often head trauma like gunshot wounds, with otherwise intact bodies. Their families must okay such harvesting with concurrence of the medical examiner in some jurisdictions depending on the nature of the case. Traumatized next-of-kin are not always in the best frame of mind to donate, especially if the victim's wishes are unknown.

Mandating harvesting is a legal, medical ethical quagmire. Best thing anyone can do is make his/her wishes known in a legal document perhaps as a codicil to a living will and health care power of attorney.

[Toasterlad]

124. That's a Separate Issue, As Far As I'm Concerned.

I'm only speaking of the dead...as in no life functions whatsoever. I do NOT believe the government or any other outside agency should have the right to declare someone "gone" and take their organs. That decision should be left up to the family, unless the individual left other instructions as to what to do under those circumstances.

[Miss Chybil]

140. You don't understand... the only time organs can be harvested is when the person has been

declared brain dead and the heart is still beating. Tissue can be harvested up to 24 hours after the heart has stopped beating.

[Toasterlad]

143. Are You Saying That TV Has Been Lying to Me for Years?

So, if a person dies, a doctor can't immediately cut them open and harvest their organs? Well, that's a bummer.

While brain dead is as good as dead to me, I suppose that other people might have a problem with letting go. I wonder how this is handled in European nations where organ donation is a given? I suspect that, like in so many other ways, they're more advanced than we are in this area.

[Raine]

125. Can't agree. I don't trust the medical establishment

plus what is to stop some weathy person from buying a needed part and someone being "offed" to get that part. x(

[scarletwoman]

127. Oh HELL no! Who then is going to decide when you're really "dead"?

An "opt out" system would be just ripe for abuse -- any impoverished non-insured victim of catastrophic physical injury could be summarily unplugged from life support in order to harvest their organs "for the greater good".

No thank you. VERY bad idea!

sw

[Alexander]

129. No, it shouldn't.

Apart from the possibility that doctors would remove organs from a still-living patient, many people just don't want to - and I think we should respect that.

[tjwash]

130. Damn. Who turned the fucking crazy up in GD today?

Thread after thread about screaming kids on airplanes and the "screw-you-my-kids-can-scream-as-loud-and obnoxiously-as-they-want" police, calling for immediate gulaging for anyone who isn't willing to put up with their drooling seat kicking sprog, threads on overpopulation that cause every lurking racist slimebag that should be tombstoned to ooze out from under the rocks that until now they have been securely nestled, and a "let's just harvest some organs from people like the world is caught in a shitty low budget Tarentino film" thread.

Go back to arguing about the imminent attack on Iran and the economy that's been on the verge of collapse since 1973 will ya? At least that's halfway entertaining...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

132. How important is actually having the card?

I've made sure that my family and friends all know I want my organs to be donated, but my wallet has too much crap in it as it is, and I'm reluctant to add something that will a) hopefully never get used, and b) probably be superfluous the moment anyone contacts my next of kin and asks what they want done, anyhow.

Oh, and if it's relevant I'm in the UK, not the US.

[Toasterlad]

134. Your Family's Wishes Generally Determine What Happens.

At least, that's the case in the United States, even if you've signed up as an organ donor, the family can often overrule it. I couldn't speak for the UK, but as long as you've made it clear to your family what your wishes are, I'd imagine you've done all you can do.

[dflprincess]

135. If the person has signed a donor card I don't believe their families'

wishes should enter into it.

[Toasterlad]

136. This Might Also Be a State-by-State Thing

On the PA driver's license application, it STRESSES that you tell your family your wishes, and says that's more important than even designating your donor status on your card. I don't know personally of any cases, but I have no trouble believing that a family has stopped a hospital from harvesting a loved ones organs even though his card said he was a donor. Hospitals want everything in triplicate and signed by 57 people.

[Toasterlad]

145. According to the Mayo Clinic...

Your driver's license might not be legal proof of your intent. Also, signing a state donor registration list might also not be proof. The only way to be sure your family will honor your wishes is to specify your intent in a living will or power of attorney. Hopefully, most families would honor then intention of an organ donor without bringing the law into it.

[blondeatlast]

149. If your wishes are stated in a Living Will, the family cannot overrule it.

It's that simple.

Here's a site that pretty much has everything the average person needs to know about organ donation:
http://www.unos.org/

[mentalsolstice]

142. If it was "opt out"

It would force more conversations about aging, elderly care, and death. I know what my mother wants, however, my father refuses to acknowledge he might die someday. My father-in-law is even worse, he is determined to outlive his kids...and refuses to discuss end-of-life issues...he's 88 years old.

[buzzard]

147. Having a BIL that needs a second kidney I am prone to say that it should be the norm, however in

all fairness this is something that I believe an individual has the right to choose. I may believe that dead is dead but others do not and it is not my place to dictate that all organs should be harvested. I may think that this is the best policy but truly who should decide for me the government or myself. ( I am an organ donor any parts wanted BTW)

[BurtWorm]

152. I was just about to post a BBC article about a doctor recommending the same

I agree with it.