If law enforcement would like to do an autopsy on my 50 times stabbed spouse...I'll be fucking upset...seriously.
Just saying.
Because spouses never kill each other and even if they did would never try to stop an autopsy which might convict them.
Also in a world where people intentionally keep their children away from hospitals because they believe it's better they die than be stained by the sin of medicine, can you really tell me no one would ever put their religious beliefs above such things?
Really, a good part of Austrailia's problem is that they make it so goddamn hard to be an organ donor. You need to fill out extra forms that require witnesses and then, after your death, your next of kin can override your wishes and veto the donation if they want.
Maybe, before jumping to the polar opposite of this system, they should take smaller steps and see if that helps? Just saying.
The government can decide what happens to it, yes. If someone dies of a murder and the government wants an autopsy done to figure out how it doesn't matter what the family believes.
I remember that families could refuse autopsies based on religious beliefs. Is this not the case? I really would like proof, because I do remember a story to the contrary.
I can't find a definitive source, but it looks like an autopsy can be refused in some jurisdictions (apparently mostly those with a strong Jewish/Muslim lobby), in others an autopsy can be ordered by law.
I guess, I mean.
System A)
Opt-In system, everyone who wishes to contribute can do so willingly to save lives.
System
Opt-Out system, everyone is automatically thrown into the donation pool for organ donation and must take appropriate actions to opt-out. (This system, without a doubt, saves more lives)
Which has the potential to fuck unwilling people over? Really, it's not like I'm advocating "don't do it because the big bad government is making bad rules." System B really does have more of a chance of doing some potentially bad things. Yeah, it's going to push those huge amounts of people that can't be bothered to do it that are definitely all for it, but it's also going to, potentially, aggravate people who weren't clear on the rules and laws and the organs were already harvested.
I think I prefer System B, but in all fairness, the previous lawmakers made a very good decision with going with System A.
The absolute worst thing that can happen in System B is getting an organ from a dead person, who, in life, didn't want to.
The worst thing that can happen in System A is 100s of people dying because of the very real lack of organs.
I don't understand the notion that this should go to a referendum, because The People Should Decide! The people do get to decide. By opting the fuck out.
And if the worst that happens is that a corpse accidentally has some structures removed and several lives are accidentally saved... Well. I look forward to lots of complaining on Today Tonight and A Current Affair.
These Fat Bludging Doctors Rape These Battling Heros To Save Rich Fatties! etc.
I don't understand the notion that this should go to a referendum, because The People Should Decide! The people do get to decide. By opting the fuck out.
And if the worst that happens is that a corpse accidentally has some structures removed and several lives are accidentally saved... Well. I look forward to lots of complaining on Today Tonight and A Current Affair.
These Fat Bludging Doctors Rape These Battling Heros To Save Fat Shonky Lebanese Builders! etc.
My body is my own. No government or body has the right to force me to part with my organs, it is one of the few unalienable rights we should have
This seems to be the prevailing argument that all people not in favour of the opt-out favour.
They obviously haven't considered the blindingly obvious counter-point to that.
OPT OUT.
So, I only read the first two and last two pages, and I've already seen several variations on this.
So what happens if/when the paperwork gets fucked up, and since it's assumed that you're a donor unless otherwise stated they harvest your organs...even though you opted out. Because as we all know, such things never happen.
Personally I'd rather they have to show that I've opted-in rather than my family needing to show I've opted-out. As much as I know we love to make fun of those hokey religious people around here (yay atheism, and all that) there are several religions where organ harvesting is actually a big deal...enough so that I'd rather that donation require positive consent rather than the other way around.
Seems like a better solution to a lack of donors, as has already been mentioned, is to simply make it significantly easier to opt-in.
So what happens if/when the paperwork gets fucked up, and since it's assumed that you're a donor unless otherwise stated they harvest your organs...even though you opted out. Because as we all know, such things never happen.
Nothing, because that person will be dead.
Church on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
So what happens if/when the paperwork gets fucked up, and since it's assumed that you're a donor unless otherwise stated they harvest your organs...even though you opted out. Because as we all know, such things never happen.
The default would be not to harvest until confirmation.
"But what about the precious organs needed?"
They wouldn't be as needed since the massive increase in available organs from an Opt-out system would give us a greater to supply to work with, meaning we could wait and even let the dead bodies' organs go unharvested without killing anyone unlike now.
Also, no one ever claimed the system would be perfect, but who needs paperwork when you'd have a networked database of people who have chosen to opt-out that can be accessed across several mediums?
The benefits to opt-out far outweigh the problems, by a factor of wang.
So what happens if/when the paperwork gets fucked up, and since it's assumed that you're a donor unless otherwise stated they harvest your organs...even though you opted out. Because as we all know, such things never happen.
Nothing, because that person will be dead.
But chances are, if they opted out, it was for a reason. Possibly their fundamental religious beliefs. And while you may or may not care, their family sure will (and they sure would have).
My primary issue with opt-out instead of opt-in is that, in general, it seems safe to assume that if mistakes are made they will be made in favor of the default. So, in an opt-out system, it seems that any mistakes are more likely to wind up harvesting somebody's organs against their will rather than the opposite. I guess I'm just not entirely comfortable with that.
Because at the end of the day, I think parting out somebody's body against their (before they were dead, of course) wishes is a "bad thing." Sorry, I've not reached that level of enlightenment where I think other people have some fundamental right to my organs when I don't need them anymore. Hell, I don't think anybody has a fundamental right to my Xbox when I don't need it anymore. And I'll just reiterate that this "oh just opt-out then" argument fails to acknowledge that mistakes will be made, period.
And, while I'm sure to be in the minority here, at the end of the day I think it's worse to part somebody's body out against their wishes than it is to not part somebody's body out when they wanted you to. Because, and I know this is callous, all the former does is cause people to (gasp) die of disease or injury. It's not like that's some unimaginable evil, or anything.
So yeah, I'm sticking with opt-in combined with making it ridiculously easy to do so.
So what happens if/when the paperwork gets fucked up, and since it's assumed that you're a donor unless otherwise stated they harvest your organs...even though you opted out. Because as we all know, such things never happen.
The default would be not to harvest until confirmation.
Confirm...what? My point is that if a mistake is made, and I don't wind up on the opt-out registry, what is there to confirm? I'm making the assumption that any such mistakes will, on average, be more likely to occur in favor of the default...in this case, in favor of donation.
EDIT: Also, after poking through the rest of the thread I liked the idea of forcing everybody to make a legally binding decision on the matter at some convenient and universal time...first hospital visit (presumably as an adult), driver's licensing, census, taxes, whatever. Assuming everybody actually supports organ donation so much, and just "didn't get around to registering," this should have roughly the same affect on supply as an opt-out program, but without the pesky presumption. When in doubt, side in favor of not harvesting. What's wrong with this system? The only real issue I can see anybody taking with it is that last bit.
So what happens if/when the paperwork gets fucked up, and since it's assumed that you're a donor unless otherwise stated they harvest your organs...even though you opted out. Because as we all know, such things never happen.
The default would be not to harvest until confirmation.
Confirm...what? My point is that if a mistake is made, and I don't wind up on the opt-out registry, what is there to confirm? I'm making the assumption that any such mistakes will, on average, be more likely to occur in favor of the default...in this case, in favor of donation.
EDIT: Also, after poking through the rest of the thread I liked the idea of forcing everybody to make a legally binding decision on the matter at some convenient and universal time...first hospital visit (presumably as an adult), driver's licensing, census, taxes, whatever. Assuming everybody actually supports organ donation so much, and just "didn't get around to registering," this should have roughly the same affect on supply as an opt-out program, but without the pesky presumption. When in doubt, side in favor of not harvesting. What's wrong with this system? The only real issue I can see anybody taking with it is that last bit.
What's wrong with it is the same thing that's wrong with teaching ID in schools and abstinence-only programs, too many people have too many fuck-tarded beliefs for it to be effective. There are times when the troglodytes of the world need to be dragged kicking and screaming for the greater good, and this is one of those times.
A dead person shouldn't be able to decide the fate of others based on some silly notion of sentimentality.
As for 'not appearing on the opt-out list' I would think such a thing would be caught before you die, and if not then unfortunately for your dead carcass your poor precious organs might go to help someone live.
I acknowledge that mistakes may be made with an opt-out system. But I acknowledge also that the consequence of said mistake would be granting someone else a better, longer life. This is one area where mistakes pretty much do anything but fuck things up.
Oh, except for some peoples immortal souls, or something, because apparently god ain't keen people who literally give themselves away to save other peoples lives. Jesus was crucified with all his organs intact, just like nature intended! Or.. whatever.
Actually I have no idea on the position of various religions, can anyone enlighten me?
And in regards to 'mistakes', what would we think if our "opt-out" significant others had their organs harvested? I'm not too sure how I'd react.
So what happens if/when the paperwork gets fucked up, and since it's assumed that you're a donor unless otherwise stated they harvest your organs...even though you opted out. Because as we all know, such things never happen.
Nothing, because that person will be dead.
But chances are, if they opted out, it was for a reason. Possibly their fundamental religious beliefs. And while you may or may not care, their family sure will (and they sure would have).
My primary issue with opt-out instead of opt-in is that, in general, it seems safe to assume that if mistakes are made they will be made in favor of the default. So, in an opt-out system, it seems that any mistakes are more likely to wind up harvesting somebody's organs against their will rather than the opposite. I guess I'm just not entirely comfortable with that.
Because at the end of the day, I think parting out somebody's body against their (before they were dead, of course) wishes is a "bad thing." Sorry, I've not reached that level of enlightenment where I think other people have some fundamental right to my organs when I don't need them anymore. Hell, I don't think anybody has a fundamental right to my Xbox when I don't need it anymore. And I'll just reiterate that this "oh just opt-out then" argument fails to acknowledge that mistakes will be made, period.
And, while I'm sure to be in the minority here, at the end of the day I think it's worse to part somebody's body out against their wishes than it is to not part somebody's body out when they wanted you to. Because, and I know this is callous, all the former does is cause people to (gasp) die of disease or injury. It's not like that's some unimaginable evil, or anything.
So yeah, I'm sticking with opt-in combined with making it ridiculously easy to do so.
You place more value on the (no longer existant) feelings of a dead person that the continued life of someone?
And in regards to 'mistakes', what would we think if our "opt-out" significant others had their organs harvested? I'm not too sure how I'd react.
I was thinking about this the other day. I thought about everyone for whom I could legitimately be considered "next of kin", realised that I have never discussed the issue of organ donation with any of them, but that I would give consent for their organs to be harvested should the situation ever arise where the decision rested with me.
Mostly because my default assumption is that something would have been said at some point if they had a problem with it. I suspect that the situation would be the same for other advocates of opt-out. Furthermore, I strongly suspect that the opt-in advocates would be inclined to say no in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
To be honest, it came as something of a surprise to me to discover that there are people with non-religious objection to organ harvesting. There's possibly an element of people on both sides stretching their own assumptions to cover the general population.
I've been through the whole thread, dumbshit. I'm not some new interloper to this argument you arrogant prick. And yeah, all of your points have been derived from "it's mah bodeh" in one way or another, and it's been beaten into the ground that that's spiritual, superstitious reasoning that has no place in legislation.
Bullshit. You see what you want to see and ignore anything to the contrary.
Fact of the matter is, even the country with one of the highest donation rates doesn't attribute it to the opt-out system, which was completely ineffective in changing donation rates for a DECADE after it was implemented. The change is attributed to a change and investment in it's system, unrelated to opt-out and heavily based on actually providing proper resources, education, promotion and support to those pesky sentimental relatives who, do, kind of, you know, still matter and have feelings - not being lumps of rotting meat and all - yet.
The US, which has an opt-in with required request policy has a donar rate higher than France, Norway and Sweden, all of whom use a opt-out system.
Heaven forbid any consideration is paid to those pesky grieving people, whose already immense grief for that newly declared lump of meat (lulz - beliefs and sentimentality) might just be made that bit worse when they find their much loved lump of meat has been mutilated without consent.
And the pesky issue of taking advantage of all those people who aren't adequately able, aware or educated to make a informed decision. Let's just turn the tables to take advantage of them - prey on the weak - if they're not Athiests then they and their families deserve it. Education, language, cultural and social barriers be damned. We're (anecdotally) saving lives - we don't give a damn about ruining those that don't need new squishy bits.
And the trust. Really, the medical profession has been wasting FAR too much time and energy on getting people to trust them, so that the weak and vulnerable will actually take a chance on getting medical care when they need it. Well, if those backward, supersticious, sentimental fools start feeling like they don't want to risk going to hospital in case they die there and haven't filled out all the neccesary paperwork, then that'll just leave more beds for the Athiests. Less organs and less chance for a transplant co-ordinator to talk to their family in the event of their death, but obviously there'll be more organs elsewhere and those aren't the lives we're trying to save.
But it's not like there's any significant examples of the donar and medical systems in any countries being horribly damaged by cases of organs being taken without explicit consent. God, no - that could never happen under a system that doesn't require consent, let alone current opt-in's that do. Could it?
But facts are all irrelevant when the counter side to this argument in this thread comes down to a bunch of Athiests holding their own beliefs high above all others and using extremely spurrious moralization in order to argue for legislation (glorious, intelligent design-y, irony).. But only if it doesn't actually impact upon them personally.
Oh, but lest we not forget - for those with selective reading disorder - "mah bodeh!"
Since when did lack of religiosity and squeamishness about organ transplantery track even close to 100%? You're full of wrong here. If you want to hate on 'Atheists'* for not being sentimental enough for you, start a thread so we can call you an idiot in an on-topic fashion.
* I get the feeling from your usage that you're one of those people who also uses the term 'evilutionist'. If you are, can you let me know so I can go do something less futile?
The Cat on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
But facts are all irrelevant when the counter side to this argument in this thread comes down to a bunch of Athiests holding their own beliefs high above all others and using extremely spurrious moralization
If you refuse to sign up to be an organ donor, then yes, your beliefs are worse and you're a worse person because of it.
Since when did it stop being okay to make value judgments? If you think that the choice not to donate isn't actually morally bankrupt, then defend that position. Don't try to shut down discussion by shouting that you're being oppressed.
Track Nine: there still hasn't been any adequate justification of why consent should even be required when we're talking about harvesting organs from a dead person.
It's also interesting that you use loaded language like "mutilated" when describing surgical procedures.
Lastly, for the love of God, donor. Donar is another name for the god of Thunder.
I think the major point is that the person is dead. That changes the entire dynamic of what I do and don't care about happening to them, seeing as how they're dead.
I was thinking about this the other day. I thought about everyone for whom I could legitimately be considered "next of kin", realised that I have never discussed the issue of organ donation with any of them, but that I would give consent for their organs to be harvested should the situation ever arise where the decision rested with me.
In the United Kingdom, next of kin are never, ever asked for consent to harvest organs. Ever. We operate on an opt-in system, and if a person has chosen to be a donor, nobody, not even parents, can get in the way. Under our system, the only person with the right to deny others your organs is yourself.
Of course, the NHS recommends that one tells one's friends and family once on the donor register, to avoid flooding the wards with sweet, delicious, anti-organ donation tears.
I was thinking about this the other day. I thought about everyone for whom I could legitimately be considered "next of kin", realised that I have never discussed the issue of organ donation with any of them, but that I would give consent for their organs to be harvested should the situation ever arise where the decision rested with me.
In the United Kingdom, next of kin are never, ever asked for consent to harvest organs. Ever. We operate on an opt-in system, and if a person has chosen to be a donor, nobody, not even parents, can get in the way. Under our system, the only person with the right to deny others your organs is yourself.
Of course, the NHS recommends that one tells one's friends and family once on the donor register, to avoid flooding the wards with sweet, delicious, anti-organ donation tears.
I know that, I was considering it as a hypothetical. It's really only in this thread that I've learned that others, in that hypothetical situation, would say no for non-religious reasons.
I was thinking about this the other day. I thought about everyone for whom I could legitimately be considered "next of kin", realised that I have never discussed the issue of organ donation with any of them, but that I would give consent for their organs to be harvested should the situation ever arise where the decision rested with me.
In the United Kingdom, next of kin are never, ever asked for consent to harvest organs. Ever. We operate on an opt-in system, and if a person has chosen to be a donor, nobody, not even parents, can get in the way. Under our system, the only person with the right to deny others your organs is yourself.
Of course, the NHS recommends that one tells one's friends and family once on the donor register, to avoid flooding the wards with sweet, delicious, anti-organ donation tears.
My understanding is that this is the way it's supposed to work in the U.S. but with a big enough mouth and a clever lawyer your family can get around that unless you've also made a living will, which can itself be contested with a big enough mouth and a clever lawyer. Also the process of opting in is much more complicated than most people seem to think, having them put it on your driver's license doesn't make it true, there's a bunch of other shit you have to do too.
But facts are all irrelevant when the counter side to this argument in this thread comes down to a bunch of Athiests holding their own beliefs high above all others and using extremely spurrious moralization
If you refuse to sign up to be an organ donor, then yes, your beliefs are worse and you're a worse person because of it.
Since when did it stop being okay to make value judgments? If you think that the choice not to donate isn't actually morally bankrupt, then defend that position. Don't try to shut down discussion by shouting that you're being oppressed.
No one is a worse person because of their beliefs. Ever.
(EDIT: I'm talking a serious moral/religious belief, not some wackadoody serial killer who has a belief that they can murder people, because I know someone will try that at some point)
This post is exactly the reason why I think an opt-in system is the better choice. You can't scream do it because it's morally right, who made you the moral police?
Religious beliefs are and always will be a huge part of this debate because it's something people hold very dear. You start implementing policies that impose restrictions on what you believe and hold dear, then we start having problems. Some will go to the courts to get it overturned, because it really does violate some pretty substantial things. The dead do still have rights, that's why you can't go fuck their corpse, but if you don't believe me, go try it. However, when the courts tell them to fuck off, you better believe there's going to be riots. Let's face it, atheists are in the very small minority compared to theists, and there are some very vocal theists that have the tendency to rally even the most mundane of believers to them.
This system, the opt-in system, has been working for a very long time. But an opt-out system is going to have problems. Really. No amount of education will help that. It's sad people die because of lack of organs, it really is. That still doesn't make it right to impose a law that could potentially invalidate someone's belief system.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
So what happens if/when the paperwork gets fucked up, and since it's assumed that you're a donor unless otherwise stated they harvest your organs...even though you opted out. Because as we all know, such things never happen.
What happens if the paperwork gets mussed up and it's not known I opted in?
Someone dies. I'm sorry but that's more important than causing your family angst.
Quid on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited May 2008
You can't scream do it because it's morally right, who made you the moral police?
Yes, clearly morals dictated by invisible unicorns are superior to those taken from the practical experience of watching an actual person rot away due to a disease like cystic fibrosis (which commonly requires a lung transplant to do anything about...if you're lucky). How insensitive I am to care more about people who are alive but currently dying in front of my face than what some insubstantial thing thinks.
No one is a worse person because of their beliefs. Ever.
That's patently absurd.
Hardly, it just doesn't agree with your belief system and you don't like it.
No, it's pretty much just absurd. I'll grant that it could be considered that it's more important how a person acts on their beliefs, rather than the beliefs themselves, but that's such a fine distinction it's barely worth mentioning.
japan on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
No one is a worse person because of their beliefs. Ever.
(EDIT: I'm talking a serious moral/religious belief, not some wackadoody serial killer who has a belief that they can murder people, because I know someone will try that at some point)
Hahahahahahaha what?
Racism, sexism, homophobia, fascism, egoism. These are serious moral beliefs, holding them makes you a worse person.
No one is a worse person because of their beliefs. Ever.
(EDIT: I'm talking a serious moral/religious belief, not some wackadoody serial killer who has a belief that they can murder people, because I know someone will try that at some point)
Hahahahahahaha what?
Racism, sexism, homophobia, fascism, egoism. These are serious moral beliefs, holding them makes you a worse person.
They're still their beliefs, are you belittling them because you don't agree? As long as they're no encroaching on you, why do you care?
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
It's sad people die because of lack of organs, it really is. That still doesn't make it right to impose a law that could potentially invalidate someone's belief system.
It's sad people die because of lack of organs, it really is. That still doesn't make it right to impose a law that could potentially invalidate someone's belief system.
You'd be dying without the system. Are you telling me your belief system exists solely because of the organ donation system?
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
No one is a worse person because of their beliefs. Ever.
(EDIT: I'm talking a serious moral/religious belief, not some wackadoody serial killer who has a belief that they can murder people, because I know someone will try that at some point)
Hahahahahahaha what?
Racism, sexism, homophobia, fascism, egoism. These are serious moral beliefs, holding them makes you a worse person.
They're still their beliefs, are you belittling them because you don't agree? As long as they're no encroaching on you, why do you care?
Oh so you do operate under the delusion that beliefs exist in a vacuum.
No one is a worse person because of their beliefs. Ever.
(EDIT: I'm talking a serious moral/religious belief, not some wackadoody serial killer who has a belief that they can murder people, because I know someone will try that at some point)
Hahahahahahaha what?
Racism, sexism, homophobia, fascism, egoism. These are serious moral beliefs, holding them makes you a worse person.
They're still their beliefs, are you belittling them because you don't agree? As long as they're no encroaching on you, why do you care?
I'm not really big on philosophy, but would this be considered as some existentialist type shit?
No one is a worse person because of their beliefs. Ever.
(EDIT: I'm talking a serious moral/religious belief, not some wackadoody serial killer who has a belief that they can murder people, because I know someone will try that at some point)
Hahahahahahaha what?
Racism, sexism, homophobia, fascism, egoism. These are serious moral beliefs, holding them makes you a worse person.
They're still their beliefs, are you belittling them because you don't agree? As long as they're no encroaching on you, why do you care?
Oh so you do operate under the delusion that beliefs exist in a vacuum.
Yup, a Bissel.
This debate has turned into, "Atheism is the only ruleset which we should follow, because it imposes the least cost to morals and lives." (Haw haw, strawman)
But I digress, still, prove to me the current system isn't working, and that a new opt-out system will solve the situation. You're going to get a whole slew of organs that are not transplantable, impede on personal belief systems, and possibly cause a huge fucking riot. Yes, clearly the better of the two systems.
Why do you think they went with the opt-in system originally and not the opt-out? Please, enlighten me.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Posts
J....j....j....joke? Teh funniez?
But then, I'd also be willing to pay taxes to support that program.
Forced charity lolz.
That seems more circuitous than anything else.
Maybe, before jumping to the polar opposite of this system, they should take smaller steps and see if that helps? Just saying.
The absolute worst thing that can happen in System B is getting an organ from a dead person, who, in life, didn't want to.
The worst thing that can happen in System A is 100s of people dying because of the very real lack of organs.
System B wins.
And if the worst that happens is that a corpse accidentally has some structures removed and several lives are accidentally saved... Well. I look forward to lots of complaining on Today Tonight and A Current Affair.
These Fat Bludging Doctors Rape These Battling Heros To Save Rich Fatties! etc.
So, I only read the first two and last two pages, and I've already seen several variations on this.
So what happens if/when the paperwork gets fucked up, and since it's assumed that you're a donor unless otherwise stated they harvest your organs...even though you opted out. Because as we all know, such things never happen.
Personally I'd rather they have to show that I've opted-in rather than my family needing to show I've opted-out. As much as I know we love to make fun of those hokey religious people around here (yay atheism, and all that) there are several religions where organ harvesting is actually a big deal...enough so that I'd rather that donation require positive consent rather than the other way around.
Seems like a better solution to a lack of donors, as has already been mentioned, is to simply make it significantly easier to opt-in.
Nothing, because that person will be dead.
The default would be not to harvest until confirmation.
"But what about the precious organs needed?"
They wouldn't be as needed since the massive increase in available organs from an Opt-out system would give us a greater to supply to work with, meaning we could wait and even let the dead bodies' organs go unharvested without killing anyone unlike now.
Also, no one ever claimed the system would be perfect, but who needs paperwork when you'd have a networked database of people who have chosen to opt-out that can be accessed across several mediums?
The benefits to opt-out far outweigh the problems, by a factor of wang.
But chances are, if they opted out, it was for a reason. Possibly their fundamental religious beliefs. And while you may or may not care, their family sure will (and they sure would have).
My primary issue with opt-out instead of opt-in is that, in general, it seems safe to assume that if mistakes are made they will be made in favor of the default. So, in an opt-out system, it seems that any mistakes are more likely to wind up harvesting somebody's organs against their will rather than the opposite. I guess I'm just not entirely comfortable with that.
Because at the end of the day, I think parting out somebody's body against their (before they were dead, of course) wishes is a "bad thing." Sorry, I've not reached that level of enlightenment where I think other people have some fundamental right to my organs when I don't need them anymore. Hell, I don't think anybody has a fundamental right to my Xbox when I don't need it anymore. And I'll just reiterate that this "oh just opt-out then" argument fails to acknowledge that mistakes will be made, period.
And, while I'm sure to be in the minority here, at the end of the day I think it's worse to part somebody's body out against their wishes than it is to not part somebody's body out when they wanted you to. Because, and I know this is callous, all the former does is cause people to (gasp) die of disease or injury. It's not like that's some unimaginable evil, or anything.
So yeah, I'm sticking with opt-in combined with making it ridiculously easy to do so.
Confirm...what? My point is that if a mistake is made, and I don't wind up on the opt-out registry, what is there to confirm? I'm making the assumption that any such mistakes will, on average, be more likely to occur in favor of the default...in this case, in favor of donation.
EDIT: Also, after poking through the rest of the thread I liked the idea of forcing everybody to make a legally binding decision on the matter at some convenient and universal time...first hospital visit (presumably as an adult), driver's licensing, census, taxes, whatever. Assuming everybody actually supports organ donation so much, and just "didn't get around to registering," this should have roughly the same affect on supply as an opt-out program, but without the pesky presumption. When in doubt, side in favor of not harvesting. What's wrong with this system? The only real issue I can see anybody taking with it is that last bit.
What's wrong with it is the same thing that's wrong with teaching ID in schools and abstinence-only programs, too many people have too many fuck-tarded beliefs for it to be effective. There are times when the troglodytes of the world need to be dragged kicking and screaming for the greater good, and this is one of those times.
A dead person shouldn't be able to decide the fate of others based on some silly notion of sentimentality.
As for 'not appearing on the opt-out list' I would think such a thing would be caught before you die, and if not then unfortunately for your dead carcass your poor precious organs might go to help someone live.
Perish the thought.
Oh, except for some peoples immortal souls, or something, because apparently god ain't keen people who literally give themselves away to save other peoples lives. Jesus was crucified with all his organs intact, just like nature intended! Or.. whatever.
Actually I have no idea on the position of various religions, can anyone enlighten me?
And in regards to 'mistakes', what would we think if our "opt-out" significant others had their organs harvested? I'm not too sure how I'd react.
You place more value on the (no longer existant) feelings of a dead person that the continued life of someone?
I don't understand this line of thought.
I was thinking about this the other day. I thought about everyone for whom I could legitimately be considered "next of kin", realised that I have never discussed the issue of organ donation with any of them, but that I would give consent for their organs to be harvested should the situation ever arise where the decision rested with me.
Mostly because my default assumption is that something would have been said at some point if they had a problem with it. I suspect that the situation would be the same for other advocates of opt-out. Furthermore, I strongly suspect that the opt-in advocates would be inclined to say no in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
To be honest, it came as something of a surprise to me to discover that there are people with non-religious objection to organ harvesting. There's possibly an element of people on both sides stretching their own assumptions to cover the general population.
Bullshit. You see what you want to see and ignore anything to the contrary.
Fact of the matter is, even the country with one of the highest donation rates doesn't attribute it to the opt-out system, which was completely ineffective in changing donation rates for a DECADE after it was implemented. The change is attributed to a change and investment in it's system, unrelated to opt-out and heavily based on actually providing proper resources, education, promotion and support to those pesky sentimental relatives who, do, kind of, you know, still matter and have feelings - not being lumps of rotting meat and all - yet.
The US, which has an opt-in with required request policy has a donar rate higher than France, Norway and Sweden, all of whom use a opt-out system.
Heaven forbid any consideration is paid to those pesky grieving people, whose already immense grief for that newly declared lump of meat (lulz - beliefs and sentimentality) might just be made that bit worse when they find their much loved lump of meat has been mutilated without consent.
And the pesky issue of taking advantage of all those people who aren't adequately able, aware or educated to make a informed decision. Let's just turn the tables to take advantage of them - prey on the weak - if they're not Athiests then they and their families deserve it. Education, language, cultural and social barriers be damned. We're (anecdotally) saving lives - we don't give a damn about ruining those that don't need new squishy bits.
And the trust. Really, the medical profession has been wasting FAR too much time and energy on getting people to trust them, so that the weak and vulnerable will actually take a chance on getting medical care when they need it. Well, if those backward, supersticious, sentimental fools start feeling like they don't want to risk going to hospital in case they die there and haven't filled out all the neccesary paperwork, then that'll just leave more beds for the Athiests. Less organs and less chance for a transplant co-ordinator to talk to their family in the event of their death, but obviously there'll be more organs elsewhere and those aren't the lives we're trying to save.
But it's not like there's any significant examples of the donar and medical systems in any countries being horribly damaged by cases of organs being taken without explicit consent. God, no - that could never happen under a system that doesn't require consent, let alone current opt-in's that do. Could it?
But facts are all irrelevant when the counter side to this argument in this thread comes down to a bunch of Athiests holding their own beliefs high above all others and using extremely spurrious moralization in order to argue for legislation (glorious, intelligent design-y, irony).. But only if it doesn't actually impact upon them personally.
Oh, but lest we not forget - for those with selective reading disorder - "mah bodeh!"
* I get the feeling from your usage that you're one of those people who also uses the term 'evilutionist'. If you are, can you let me know so I can go do something less futile?
If you refuse to sign up to be an organ donor, then yes, your beliefs are worse and you're a worse person because of it.
Since when did it stop being okay to make value judgments? If you think that the choice not to donate isn't actually morally bankrupt, then defend that position. Don't try to shut down discussion by shouting that you're being oppressed.
It's also interesting that you use loaded language like "mutilated" when describing surgical procedures.
Lastly, for the love of God, donor. Donar is another name for the god of Thunder.
God clone organs can't come soon enough.
Of course, the NHS recommends that one tells one's friends and family once on the donor register, to avoid flooding the wards with sweet, delicious, anti-organ donation tears.
I know that, I was considering it as a hypothetical. It's really only in this thread that I've learned that others, in that hypothetical situation, would say no for non-religious reasons.
My understanding is that this is the way it's supposed to work in the U.S. but with a big enough mouth and a clever lawyer your family can get around that unless you've also made a living will, which can itself be contested with a big enough mouth and a clever lawyer. Also the process of opting in is much more complicated than most people seem to think, having them put it on your driver's license doesn't make it true, there's a bunch of other shit you have to do too.
No one is a worse person because of their beliefs. Ever.
(EDIT: I'm talking a serious moral/religious belief, not some wackadoody serial killer who has a belief that they can murder people, because I know someone will try that at some point)
This post is exactly the reason why I think an opt-in system is the better choice. You can't scream do it because it's morally right, who made you the moral police?
Religious beliefs are and always will be a huge part of this debate because it's something people hold very dear. You start implementing policies that impose restrictions on what you believe and hold dear, then we start having problems. Some will go to the courts to get it overturned, because it really does violate some pretty substantial things. The dead do still have rights, that's why you can't go fuck their corpse, but if you don't believe me, go try it. However, when the courts tell them to fuck off, you better believe there's going to be riots. Let's face it, atheists are in the very small minority compared to theists, and there are some very vocal theists that have the tendency to rally even the most mundane of believers to them.
This system, the opt-in system, has been working for a very long time. But an opt-out system is going to have problems. Really. No amount of education will help that. It's sad people die because of lack of organs, it really is. That still doesn't make it right to impose a law that could potentially invalidate someone's belief system.
That's patently absurd.
Hardly, it just doesn't agree with your belief system and you don't like it.
Someone dies. I'm sorry but that's more important than causing your family angst.
Yes, clearly morals dictated by invisible unicorns are superior to those taken from the practical experience of watching an actual person rot away due to a disease like cystic fibrosis (which commonly requires a lung transplant to do anything about...if you're lucky). How insensitive I am to care more about people who are alive but currently dying in front of my face than what some insubstantial thing thinks.
I don't have a belief system. It's still absurd. It could only be true if beliefs existed in a vacuum, which is pretty damned apparently false.
No, it's pretty much just absurd. I'll grant that it could be considered that it's more important how a person acts on their beliefs, rather than the beliefs themselves, but that's such a fine distinction it's barely worth mentioning.
Hahahahahahaha what?
Racism, sexism, homophobia, fascism, egoism. These are serious moral beliefs, holding them makes you a worse person.
They're still their beliefs, are you belittling them because you don't agree? As long as they're no encroaching on you, why do you care?
You'd be dying without the system. Are you telling me your belief system exists solely because of the organ donation system?
Oh so you do operate under the delusion that beliefs exist in a vacuum.
Yup, a Bissel.
This debate has turned into, "Atheism is the only ruleset which we should follow, because it imposes the least cost to morals and lives." (Haw haw, strawman)
But I digress, still, prove to me the current system isn't working, and that a new opt-out system will solve the situation. You're going to get a whole slew of organs that are not transplantable, impede on personal belief systems, and possibly cause a huge fucking riot. Yes, clearly the better of the two systems.
Why do you think they went with the opt-in system originally and not the opt-out? Please, enlighten me.