Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Australia] Opt-out organ donation

1910111214

Posts

  • AdrienAdrien Registered User
    edited May 2008
    bowen wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    With opt-in: You have paperwork for only those who opted-in to the system
    Wit opt-out: You have paperwork for every single citizen who needs to be tissue typed, blood typed, et al. And then you have the paperwork for those that opted-out.
    O_o

    No you don't. That can all be and is done at time of death. I've opted in on my driver liscense and government ID but none of that information shows up anywhere on those. If I die they'll have to get all that information then and there.

    Okay, that little boy waiting on the lung just died because we didn't do the exams ahead of time. If we're going to implement an opt-out system, why are we doing it half-assed if the point is to improve the turnover and amount of organs for transplantation?

    o_O

    This is a really bizarre argument.

    tmkm.jpg
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    bowen wrote: »
    Okay, that little boy waiting on the lung just died because we didn't do the exams ahead of time. If we're going to implement an opt-out system, why are we doing it half-assed if the point is to improve the turnover and amount of organs for transplantation?
    Quid wrote: »
    And holy fuck drop the "If you really cared" arguments. They're bullshit and nobody's tricked by them.

    PSN: allenquid
  • Track NineTrack Nine Registered User
    edited May 2008
    Quid wrote: »
    Watch this:
    So, preference for an opt-in is a religion now? And who's shitting on your right to not donate? - it's already there, multi-faceted and with safe-guards in place. It just requires you actually want to follow your religion enough to take a minor action and discuss the matter with your family.

    This is why your argument fails. It doesn't elevate opt in above opt out.

    Doesn't quite work that easily..

    What safeguards? without a need for consent, there are no checks but a quick look into a database. If the person was unaware of the system or found it inaccessible (blamed from the need for opt-out) there is nothing.

    A grieving relative's default expectation is not to find their loved one's body has been opportunistically mutilated and given away. That's what makes it important to discuss it with your loved ones - so that they won't have to cope with further shock or unexpected trauma on top of their grief. Loved ones have a habit of wanting to say goodbye and hospitals often allow them to do so - that process is inhibited when the body is shall we say "depleted", tissues and organs removed and the body disfigured.
    That's one of the significant reasons why organ donor programs extoll the need to discuss the choice with family. Because the additional impact upon the body and upset it can cause to loved ones can be significant and even damaging if they are forced to face it on top of their loss.

    Opt-in or opt-out: not talking to family about being a donor = gruesome surprise and callous disregard for their feelings at such a tragic time.
    Opt-out: not talking to family about not wanting to be a donor - irrelevant, because apparently they shouldn't get a say and if your wishes are met your body will be whole.

    On the whole, that's a pretty poor attempt to turn an argument around.

    Aside, if by chance you are a registered donor and haven't done so, you need to talk to your family and make sure they understand your wishes and what to expect. There are more people than yourself and the recipient who are affected by the choice to donate and your apparent disregard for that is quite frankly terrifying.

    Quid wrote: »
    Nobody's against those things. They don't invalidate organ donation from the dead though. Until you completely eliminate organ shortages this is a measure to help reduce it. Once that happens it'll be a moot point then since it won't be necessary to harvest the organs.

    No, again it's not and you've yet to show it to be.

    You propose it solely on the conjecture that it will do so, despite the failure of such system in other countries to provide the miracle gain you assume it would provide. Sweden languishes at the bottom of the donation tables despite having opt-out in place - by your logic it should be topping the charts. Topping the charts is actually Spain - who's admirable figures are credited, not to opt-out - but to the radical changes they made to their system and investment in infrastructure.

    Crazy - there are isses that should be addressed, solutions and possible systems which could achieve a higher donation rates and even better utilize current rates - all retaining consent and respect for people's beliefs. That actually address the factors influencing the shortages occurring in the donor system. Yet, through sheer conjecture alone, you cling to opt-out seemingly because actually doing something to save a life is too much to ask despite it's apparent all-encompassing importance. That, and the notion of pursuing something that might not upset all those silly fundies or worse, share the burden a little mroe evenly, is completely unthinkable.

    You keep demanding that people show why opt-out isn't a good idea and people have pandered to you. Now, why don't you demonstrate why, among all the options, opt-out is the best and preferable solution and why it's miraculous impact hasn't been seen everywhere it has been implemented.

    I'll even help you along and provide a link to a parlimentary review of organ donation which looked into and dicusses the matter and issues affecting it. It might just get you started and even contains a few figures regarding the matter.

    Linky

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Quid wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Okay, that little boy waiting on the lung just died because we didn't do the exams ahead of time. If we're going to implement an opt-out system, why are we doing it half-assed if the point is to improve the turnover and amount of organs for transplantation?
    Quid wrote: »
    And holy fuck drop the "If you really cared" arguments. They're bullshit and nobody's tricked by them.

    I'm sorry, this is a moral/ethical debate, not a legal one. I'm not going to stand for that "no one's tricked" and it being bullshit. You don't like it? Argue the legalese of why it's okay, and why governments have or deserve the right to make laws in regards to people's bodies. Both in life and death.

  • KageraKagera Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    bowen wrote: »
    It could be they have a proper way to prepare the dead. I won't say as I'm not aware of any particular homage, but I'm sure there's an "acceptable" way to embalm them.

    Is that in the bible? Or ANY religious text?

    "How to properly prepare the dead 2000 years from now..."

    “This is America. We’re entitled to our opinions.”
    “Wrong. This is Texas. And my opinion is the only one that counts."
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    bowen wrote: »
    I'm sorry, this is a moral/ethical debate, not a legal one. I'm not going to stand for that "no one's tricked" and it being bullshit. You don't like it? Argue the legalese of why it's okay, and why governments have or deserve the right to make laws in regards to people's bodies. Both in life and death.
    So then you think people should have to opt in for blood transfusions?

    PSN: allenquid
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Kagera wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    It could be they have a proper way to prepare the dead. I won't say as I'm not aware of any particular homage, but I'm sure there's an "acceptable" way to embalm them.

    Is that in the bible? Or ANY religious text?

    "How to properly prepare the dead 2000 years from now..."
    Embalming as we know it today didn't actually start til the Civil War, so I doubt it.

    PSN: allenquid
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Kagera wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    It could be they have a proper way to prepare the dead. I won't say as I'm not aware of any particular homage, but I'm sure there's an "acceptable" way to embalm them.

    Is that in the bible? Or ANY religious text?

    "How to properly prepare the dead 2000 years from now..."

    I'm sure it's in the ones that do support it. I very much doubt it's in the bible specifically. However the be-all holy book is not necessarily the only religious text. I wouldn't be too surprised if the bible tells people not to desecrate their body by allow the removal of any of their flesh.

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Quid wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    I'm sorry, this is a moral/ethical debate, not a legal one. I'm not going to stand for that "no one's tricked" and it being bullshit. You don't like it? Argue the legalese of why it's okay, and why governments have or deserve the right to make laws in regards to people's bodies. Both in life and death.
    So then you think people should have to opt in for blood transfusions?

    Yes, because they still have to ask you. And that's not even the same thing.

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    bowen wrote: »
    Yes, because they still have to ask you. And that's not even the same thing.
    Yes it is, they're desecrating people's bodies without their permission! And they don't have to ask permission in an emergency. Clearly we need to stop all emergency blood transfusions lest we violate someone's beliefs while they're bleeding out.

    PSN: allenquid
  • KageraKagera Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Basically to respect everyone's beliefs we need to make a checklist of every possible procedure and make people put a check for which they are okay with and which they aren't.

    Just in case.

    “This is America. We’re entitled to our opinions.”
    “Wrong. This is Texas. And my opinion is the only one that counts."
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Quid wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Yes, because they still have to ask you. And that's not even the same thing.
    Yes it is, they're desecrating people's bodies without their permission! And they don't have to ask permission in an emergency. Clearly we need to stop all emergency blood transfusions lest we violate someone's beliefs while they're bleeding out.

    "Oh no this man is dying, quick give him some blood."

    "Oh no this man died, quick chop up his body so we can take his organs."

    Not, quite.

    I implore you. Prove to me opt-out is better. Other than "it saves lives." I want real proof, hard numbers, and multiple sources.

    Compare several opt-in countries with several opt-out countries. We need to get to the bottom of this circular runabout! Post haste!

  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    bowen wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Yes, because they still have to ask you. And that's not even the same thing.
    Yes it is, they're desecrating people's bodies without their permission! And they don't have to ask permission in an emergency. Clearly we need to stop all emergency blood transfusions lest we violate someone's beliefs while they're bleeding out.

    "Oh no this man is dying, quick give him some blood."

    "Oh no this man died, quick chop up his body so we can take his organs."

    Not, quite.

    I implore you. Prove to me opt-out is better. Other than "it saves lives." I want real proof, hard numbers, and multiple sources.

    Compare several opt-in countries with several opt-out countries. We need to get to the bottom of this circular runabout! Post haste!
    See though, what do you mean by better?

    It saves more lives? Well... you just said that didn't count.

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    bowen wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Yes, because they still have to ask you. And that's not even the same thing.
    Yes it is, they're desecrating people's bodies without their permission! And they don't have to ask permission in an emergency. Clearly we need to stop all emergency blood transfusions lest we violate someone's beliefs while they're bleeding out.

    "Oh no this man is dying, quick give him some blood."

    "Oh no this man died, quick chop up his body so we can take his organs."

    Not, quite.

    I implore you. Prove to me opt-out is better. Other than "it saves lives." I want real proof, hard numbers, and multiple sources.

    Compare several opt-in countries with several opt-out countries. We need to get to the bottom of this circular runabout! Post haste!
    See though, what do you mean by better?

    It saves more lives? Well... you just said that didn't count.

    Well I need more proof, because you saying it doesn't mean it's true.

  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    But, what about illegals who don't do the paperwork a normal citizen does? (First hospital visit?)
    I think we've seen how, even if the story wasn't true, it would hypothetically play out.
    We may have to regulate lard shipments to taco carts... after all, a fatty liver is no good to us.

    "Adios, mofo" -- TX Gov Rick Perry (R)
  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Quid wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    I'm sorry, this is a moral/ethical debate, not a legal one. I'm not going to stand for that "no one's tricked" and it being bullshit. You don't like it? Argue the legalese of why it's okay, and why governments have or deserve the right to make laws in regards to people's bodies. Both in life and death.
    So then you think people should have to opt in for blood transfusions?
    If you're gonna take my blood from me because I happened to be unconcious outside the hospital and happen to be the right blood type for some guy who cut an artery while shaving? Yes. You don't get to shangai my sangre.

    Or are you saying I have to be concious to say, "yes, you can give me new blood from the bank?" Are you saying that's the same argument as assuming you can use my corpse like a used parts bin because the post office lost the mailer?

    "Adios, mofo" -- TX Gov Rick Perry (R)
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    bowen wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Yes, because they still have to ask you. And that's not even the same thing.
    Yes it is, they're desecrating people's bodies without their permission! And they don't have to ask permission in an emergency. Clearly we need to stop all emergency blood transfusions lest we violate someone's beliefs while they're bleeding out.

    "Oh no this man is dying, quick give him some blood."

    "Oh no this man died, quick chop up his body so we can take his organs."

    Not, quite.

    I implore you. Prove to me opt-out is better. Other than "it saves lives." I want real proof, hard numbers, and multiple sources.

    Compare several opt-in countries with several opt-out countries. We need to get to the bottom of this circular runabout! Post haste!
    See though, what do you mean by better?

    It saves more lives? Well... you just said that didn't count.

    Well I need more proof, because you saying it doesn't mean it's true.

    Oh, alright. I'd say it's pretty evident that having more organs would probably solve organ shortages, but sure, at least that's an internally consistent request.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Oh, alright. I'd say it's pretty evident that having more organs would probably solve organ shortages, but sure, at least that's an internally consistent request.

    Except that nobody has yet actually shown that an opt-out system will actually provide more organs than an opt-in system. See, you might think this is self-evident, but it has been contested and numbers have even been provided showing very little correlation between opt-out and actually having more organs available.

    Especially if this opt-out system involves family members being able to say no, since familial objection seems to be where a huge number of potential organs get lost.

    EDIT: Especially since under an opt-out system, everybody that wants to be can just presume they're a donor and not have to worry mirite? At least until they die and oops! The family they never talked to about it says no. You think there won't be just as high of a rate, if not higher, of familial rejection in cases where somebody never actively indicated a preference while alive?

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    bowen wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »

    Compare several opt-in countries with several opt-out countries. We need to get to the bottom of this circular runabout! Post haste!
    See though, what do you mean by better?

    It saves more lives? Well... you just said that didn't count.

    Well I need more proof, because you saying it doesn't mean it's true.

    Oh, alright. I'd say it's pretty evident that having more organs would probably solve organ shortages, but sure, at least that's an internally consistent request.

    No, I said tell me how it's actually better at saving more lives, and prove it with multiple sources.

    And also, while you're at it, prove if it's better than a universal polling system.

  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Man, I never said I was filling said request, I'm still looking around at non-scholarly articles on the subject. I was just accepting that I had misinterpreted your request for information.

    Good point, McDermott, I hadn't considered that the familial objections would be equally likely in an opt-out system. Though that could change if it became the cultural standard, I think.

    Is there a reason we allow families to object now? I mean, if you've got the donor thing on your card, why should we believe your cousin when they say you really wanted to keep your kidney?

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Man, I never said I was filling said request, I'm still looking around at non-scholarly articles on the subject. I was just accepting that I had misinterpreted your request for information.

    Good point, McDermott, I hadn't considered that the familial objections would be equally likely in an opt-out system. Though that could change if it became the cultural standard, I think.

    Is there a reason we allow families to object now? I mean, if you've got the donor thing on your card, why should we believe your cousin when they say you really wanted to keep your kidney?

    I agree completely. I don't think anyone has the right to negate your choice, no matter how close they were.

    I might make an exception to a significant other, but no one else. Should anyone have the right to claim that you had intended something different than what you had already specified?

    What if your family tried to push their overbearingness onto your request. For instance, let's say I decided to be an organ donor but I was ousted from my family because of my religious beliefs. Then when I die, they choose to negate my request because of their beliefs. Is this too much of a double-edged sword?

  • evilbobevilbob Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    It's a side effect of making it easy to opt in. If it's just a box you tick as you get your license it's pretty easy for your family to argue you didn't properly consider your decision at the time. Then again, you do it in a fashion that makes it absolutely 100% clear you want to (living will or what have you) and most people who otherwise would sign up can't be bothered with the effort required.

    evilbob wrote: »
    How pretty am I?
    Geth roll 1d10
    Geth wrote: »
    /me rolls 1d10 -> 10 (sum:10)
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Man, I never said I was filling said request, I'm still looking around at non-scholarly articles on the subject. I was just accepting that I had misinterpreted your request for information.

    Good point, McDermott, I hadn't considered that the familial objections would be equally likely in an opt-out system. Though that could change if it became the cultural standard, I think.

    Is there a reason we allow families to object now? I mean, if you've got the donor thing on your card, why should we believe your cousin when they say you really wanted to keep your kidney?

    We shouldn't, actually...if you have actively consented to donation while alive. Which is why I figure a system of universal polling is better in pretty much every way, provided you make it legally binding. Increases the donor pool while still getting consent from all donors. Win-win...win?

    Hell, you could even give people an extra option or two...like explicit consent (legally binding, family can't object), stated intent (leave choice to family, but let them know what you'd have chosen), stated non-intent (same as above), and explicit lack of consent (legally binding).


    Though, as was pointed out earlier, apparently in Australia under the current opt-in program people still have this option (consent vs. intent) and a great deal choose the latter...so it's questionable whether most people would actually leave their family out of it anyway given the option. Still, I can't help but think that a system which universally records everybody decision/intent will probably lead to the same gains in donorship, and could theoretically lead to more (since, unlike an opt-out system, having to make the decision may spur some people to talk to their families about it as well).


    Opt-out seems to me like a system that is no better than opt-in, and likely significantly worse that universal polling. The only real benefit I'm seeing from opt-out is that maybe, if we're really lucky, we might get to fuck over some random religious people.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    evilbob wrote: »
    It's a side effect of making it easy to opt in. If it's just a box you tick as you get your license it's pretty easy for your family to argue you didn't properly consider your decision at the time. Then again, you do it in a fashion that makes it absolutely 100% clear you want to (living will or what have you) and most people who otherwise would sign up can't be bothered with the effort required.

    True. But at the same time I don't think forcing, at some point, grown-ups to make this decision and legally holding them to it is the worst idea in the world, and definitely comes in above the alternative, which seems to be just assuming their consent anyway.

  • evilbobevilbob Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    The advantage of opt out is that you can require a much lower degree of expresion of intent for the alternate option. If you've just had to tick a box to donate it's pretty easy for your family or whatever to stop it happening. If you've ticked a box saying you don't want it to happen it won't happen. Another advantage is that apathy is less of an issue. If you have religous or other concerns that lead you to not want to donate you will opt out, especially if it's as easy as checking a box. If you don't really care what happens to your body after you die you're probably not going to go to the effort of confirming that you want to donate. The problem with opt in is that those who don't care, and those who flat out don't want to are inseparable. In an opt out system they are not.

    evilbob wrote: »
    How pretty am I?
    Geth roll 1d10
    Geth wrote: »
    /me rolls 1d10 -> 10 (sum:10)
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    evilbob wrote: »
    The problem with opt in is that those who don't care, and those who flat out don't want to are inseparable. In an opt out system they are not.

    I don't think it's the right of any government to make that sort of decision or requirement.

    (I think the UNOS system is a more charity-esque situation -- which might be a different, opt-in isn't really a "law" more of an individual choice, however opt-out makes it into law)

  • evilbobevilbob Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    I'd rather organ donation happened based on a more accurate measure of intent.

    evilbob wrote: »
    How pretty am I?
    Geth roll 1d10
    Geth wrote: »
    /me rolls 1d10 -> 10 (sum:10)
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    evilbob wrote: »
    I'd rather organ donation happened based on a more accurate measure of intent.

    I think we can all agree to this.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    bowen wrote: »
    evilbob wrote: »
    I'd rather organ donation happened based on a more accurate measure of intent.

    I think we can all agree to this.

    I don't know about "all." Remember, we have had some people explicitly state getting the organs of those who might have objected as a benefit of opt-out. Nobody on this page though, I don't think.

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    evilbob wrote: »
    I'd rather organ donation happened based on a more accurate measure of intent.

    I think we can all agree to this.

    I don't know about "all." Remember, we have had some people explicitly state getting the organs of those who might have objected as a benefit of opt-out. Nobody on this page though, I don't think.

    Okay, for the sake of political correctness, the majority of us can agree this is the best approach to things.

  • evilbobevilbob Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    bowen wrote: »
    evilbob wrote: »
    I'd rather organ donation happened based on a more accurate measure of intent.

    I think we can all agree to this.
    This is where opt-in has a serious problem though. If you make it easy to sign up, it's too easy for the next of kin to argue their way out of it happening. If you make it require more effort to, you end up with people who are willing to donate their organs not doing so because it's too much effort. Under an opt-out system it's a lot easier to make a "tick a box" decision to take the non-default option binding. All you have to do past that is not take organs from people who either can't be identified or haven't had the opportunity to opt out. By putting the onus to declare intent on the more motivated and more easily enforcable side you'll end up with a much more accurate system.

    evilbob wrote: »
    How pretty am I?
    Geth roll 1d10
    Geth wrote: »
    /me rolls 1d10 -> 10 (sum:10)
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    evilbob wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    evilbob wrote: »
    I'd rather organ donation happened based on a more accurate measure of intent.

    I think we can all agree to this.
    This is where opt-in has a serious problem though. If you make it easy to sign up, it's too easy for the next of kin to argue their way out of it happening. If you make it require more effort to, you end up with people who are willing to donate their organs not doing so because it's too much effort. Under an opt-out system it's a lot easier to make a "tick a box" decision to take the non-default option binding. All you have to do past that is not take organs from people who either can't be identified or haven't had the opportunity to opt out. By putting the onus to declare intent on the more motivated and more easily enforcable side you'll end up with a much more accurate system.

    But with the opt-out system being proposed, you still run into the issue of next-of-kin overriding the deceased's (passive) decision. Because pretty much every opt-out system still allows the family the final word...it's just presumed that if they don't object, then you can take the organs.

    At which point I'll again note that familial objection is a huge factor in the loss of viable organs.

    At which point it seems like finding a way to allow every person (or as close as possible to it) to conveniently make an active decision in the matter (one way or the other) would be preferable. As for next-of-kin trying to override the decision by the deceased to give if we make it just a smidge too easy, that seems like something that would be easily fixed by legislation...by legislation less far reaching that assuming consent from everybody.

  • evilbobevilbob Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    You'll still have problems with familial objection yes, but with more cases being considered (the people who don't care enough to opt in) you'll still end up with a better representation of people's intent.

    evilbob wrote: »
    How pretty am I?
    Geth roll 1d10
    Geth wrote: »
    /me rolls 1d10 -> 10 (sum:10)
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    evilbob wrote: »
    You'll still have problems with familial objection yes, but with more cases being considered (the people who don't care enough to opt in) you'll still end up with a better representation of people's intent.

    I still fail to see how this can conceivably be a better representation of people's intent than universal polling, whereby every last person has their intent explicitly recorded.

  • evilbobevilbob Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    evilbob wrote: »
    You'll still have problems with familial objection yes, but with more cases being considered (the people who don't care enough to opt in) you'll still end up with a better representation of people's intent.

    I still fail to see how this can conceivably be a better representation of people's intent than universal polling, whereby every last person has their intent explicitly recorded.
    If it's easy to select yes on the results will be the same as for opt out. If it's hard, people who don't care still won't pick yes. If it's hard to pick yes but made equally hard to select no you're needlessly complicating things.

    evilbob wrote: »
    How pretty am I?
    Geth roll 1d10
    Geth wrote: »
    /me rolls 1d10 -> 10 (sum:10)
  • ElkiElki hegemon globalSuper Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited May 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    Doesn't sound like a bad system. But I still don't have any problems with the one being proposed.

    I do, but I think it's mainly because I lend a lot more weight to religious objections than others here do. For instance, if somebody's organs were removed over their religious objections due either to error or not having family available to object or whatever reason, I'd say that harm has been done to them. Yes, even though they are dead. That's what happens when you believe in an afterlife.

    Which is why not only do I think my system is superior, but why knowing that there is a superior system that minimizes this risk I have to oppose the opt-out system.

    It's superior when you believe in an afterlife, which I have no reason to do and has no place in public policy. I'm OK with the religious objections argument when there's a family and no clear preferences, because of the trauma to said family if their wishes were not respected. Otherwise, meh.

    So, fuck your religious beliefs if you don't have a family, or if they can't be found (or if you can fudge the translation paperwork)? Yeah, sorry, I'm not supporting that policy.

    I'm OK with respecting someone wishes, be they religious or not. Your plan isn't paper-work-fuck-up proof either, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

    I just don't see the harm in taking somebody's organs when they don't have a family and haven't said not to. Alternately, if you want to make it an argument about my hatred of religion fuck their religious beliefs, rabble rabble rabble.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    I'm officially changing my position on this matter to "I think we should try an awareness campaign as a precursor to any policy changes".

    This is obviously issue enough that it gets people talking, so a clever government would raise the idea in parliament, let the media get wind of it (which has happened a little here but not nearly enough) and then opt instead to perhaps, I don't know, run some useful government ads about how to become a legally binding organ donor.

    Because as far as I know it's essentially an unasked question here - no one wants to talk about it.

    The other thing I'm wondering here is if there's any data on the circumstances or reasons families typically cite for obstructing organ donation, because as the papers cited earlier in this thread pointed out one of the difficulties is that for a family member there's no obvious difference between organ donation and not - the (dead) family member is still breathing and warm to the touch. No one necessarily appreciates that all that happens when they say no is that they turn off the ventilator - how accepting can we expect people to be of the final state of the individual in question?

  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2008
    There was a series of ads a couple of years ago, as I recall. I don't think this notion came out of the blue.

    tmsig.jpg
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    There was a series of ads a couple of years ago, as I recall. I don't think this notion came out of the blue.

    Indeed, but I'm thinking lately that there's basically nothing other then a few very old stickers on filing cabinets in my parents practice (at least in NSW), and more importantly there is absolutely nothing about it even for the non-legally binding stuff at the RTA.

    Which I suppose goes back to my "how many people tick the box" question - because that would lend some credence to the notion that the real problem of organ donation lies elsewhere.

  • ClickForthClickForth Registered User
    edited June 2008
    hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Sign In or Register to comment.