That's nice McDermott, I'm all for your universal consent system, but that's not what's being argued. And I definitely believe the grief of a family losing a loved on is worse than that of a family finding out their relative's organs were accidentally removed because he never bothered to register or a paper work foul up.
That's great. My family could give a shit about what happened to someone else when I died. Yeah, they feel bad someone died but I'm their family. They care what happens to me over them.
You can't fucking measure grief. Grief is grief. I personally think someone grieving over a car accident is a little bit more important that someone grieving over a relative who they knew was dying. Yeah, still grief, but how are you going to measure it?
Then stop using grief as an argument. Either their feelings matter equally or they mean jack shit. You don't get to escalate the feelings of religious indignity over those of loss of family.
That's nice McDermott, I'm all for your universal consent system, but that's not what's being argued. And I definitely believe the grief of a family losing a loved on is worse than that of a family finding out their relative's organs were accidentally removed because he never bothered to register or a paper work foul up.
That's great. My family could give a shit about what happened to someone else when I died. Yeah, they feel bad someone died but I'm their family. They care what happens to me over them.
You can't fucking measure grief. Grief is grief. I personally think someone grieving over a car accident is a little bit more important that someone grieving over a relative who they knew was dying. Yeah, still grief, but how are you going to measure it?
Then stop using grief as an argument. Either their feelings matter equally or they mean jack shit. You don't get to escalate the feelings of religious indignity over those of loss of family.
And you don't get to escalate the feelings of losing a family member over the religious indignity.
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
That's nice McDermott, I'm all for your universal consent system, but that's not what's being argued. And I definitely believe the grief of a family losing a loved on is worse than that of a family finding out their relative's organs were accidentally removed because he never bothered to register or a paper work foul up.
That's great. My family could give a shit about what happened to someone else when I died. Yeah, they feel bad someone died but I'm their family. They care what happens to me over them.
You can't fucking measure grief. Grief is grief. I personally think someone grieving over a car accident is a little bit more important that someone grieving over a relative who they knew was dying. Yeah, still grief, but how are you going to measure it?
Then stop using grief as an argument. Either their feelings matter equally or they mean jack shit. You don't get to escalate the feelings of religious indignity over those of loss of family.
Isn't the grief of the donor/family more relevant here? I mean, people have been spouting "dead people don't own stuff" for a bit here, but it seems like quite a different matter to assert that critically ill people somehow have a right to someone else's organs.
Well, considering the former has likely had plenty of time to come to grips with the concept (considering that to my knowledge many diseases requiring organ donation don't just "pop up") whereas in the latter it's more of a "oh, hey, by the way, fuck you" I'd say it's a toss-up. Unless you just don't give any consideration to people's beliefs, which I think is the running theme here.
You know what? Fuck you. Over and over I'm told if I'm for opt out I don't give two shits about peoples beliefs. If I didn't care I'd be advocating mandatory. So drop the fucking bullshit argument that this is some oppressive law that would ruin the lives of everyone against it. Because right now opt in is ruining peoples lives by letting them die. And when it's your own family member sitting on their death bed I'm certain "having come to grips with their coming death" won't be nearly as acceptable as "We ust got a lung from this guy who didn't opt out, they're going to be okay.
Now, I'm far from a libertarian...but I guess around here I'd fall into the crotchety conservative. I just wonder how extremely socialist (and by extremely I don't mean a lot, I mean far past what is reasonable) your society has to get before this is your first choice. Before you can fail to even consider a "hey, let's just ask everybody in a legally binding way" system and move straight to the "hey, lets just assume we can take them from anybody" system.
And when it's your own family member sitting on their death bed I'm certain "having come to grips with their coming death" won't be nearly as acceptable as "We ust got a lung from this guy who didn't opt out, they're going to be okay.
I'd like to think that I'm not generally a giant raging hypocrite. As it stands, yes I would rather lose a family member than have them live over somebody's religious objections. If my wife had gotten a lung from that Mexican dude in the CourtTV story (assuming the veracity of it, just hypothetically), I'd feel like absolute shit.
Quit acting like I wouldn't apply my own fucking standards to myself.
Isn't the grief of the donor/family more relevant here? I mean, people have been spouting "dead people don't own stuff" for a bit here, but it seems like quite a different matter to assert that critically ill people somehow have a right to someone else's organs.
They don't have a right to specific people's organs, no. But they do have a right to any organs that become available through the medical system.
Isn't the grief of the donor/family more relevant here? I mean, people have been spouting "dead people don't own stuff" for a bit here, but it seems like quite a different matter to assert that critically ill people somehow have a right to someone else's organs.
They don't have a right to specific people's organs, no. But they do have a right to any organs that become available through the medical system.
So then the question becomes which organs the medical system has a right to take. Since the medical system is acting on behalf of society at large, the question then is whether society at large has a right to take somebody else's organs and give them to the critically ill.
Before you can fail to even consider a "hey, let's just ask everybody in a legally binding way" system and move straight to the "hey, lets just assume we can take them from anybody" system.
Isn't the grief of the donor/family more relevant here? I mean, people have been spouting "dead people don't own stuff" for a bit here, but it seems like quite a different matter to assert that critically ill people somehow have a right to someone else's organs.
They don't have a right to specific people's organs, no. But they do have a right to any organs that become available through the medical system.
So then the question becomes which organs the medical system has a right to take. Since the medical system is acting on behalf of society at large, the question then is whether society at large has a right to take somebody else's organs and give them to the critically ill.
I'd say they have about as much right as forcing people to take transfusions without their consent.
Before you can fail to even consider a "hey, let's just ask everybody in a legally binding way" system and move straight to the "hey, lets just assume we can take them from anybody" system.
That's nice McDermott, I'm all for your universal consent system, but that's not what's being argued.
Then I guess my position is "fuck those uber-socialist pricks, and their not giving more than passing lip service to consent when doing so would have the exact same fucking net effect in terms of lives saved."
I'm not going to support a system I have a serious objection to, just because it will provide an improvement in one sense, when a less objectionable system would have the exact same effect. I'm going to call the people who proposed the system assholes, oppose it, and suggest maybe they try the more sensible system.
I mean, I'll pay my taxes and let you give some of that money to poor people, it's cool. You don't need to send somebody from the IRS to kick me in the balls yearly along with it. Especially when the non-ball-kicking system helps poor people out just as much. And, in fact, I will vehemently oppose the ball-kicking system and suggest that you implement the non-ball-kicking system instead. It's not because I hate poor people, or want them to starve...if you fail to implement the non-ball-kicking system, then their starvation is on you, not me.
EDIT: Sorry, I tried to come up with a horrible car analogy, and finally found a situation where it wasn't possible. You'll have to accept this horrible non-car analogy instead.
So then the question becomes which organs the medical system has a right to take. Since the medical system is acting on behalf of society at large, the question then is whether society at large has a right to take somebody else's organs and give them to the critically ill.
I'd say they have about as much right as forcing people to take transfusions without their consent.
There's just a tiny difference between the two, there. I'll let you figure it out.
And you don't get to escalate the feelings of losing a family member over the religious indignity.
Excellent. Since we're past feelings which system involves people not dying as much?
Neither. Opt-in is working better than opt-out is in some countries. It's all about education, not the implied choice.
And in others opt out is working better. But with the worst case scenario of possibly more lives saved. Even if it was only a couple hundred that'd be plenty reason.
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.
EDIT: Especially when there is an alternative policy that nets us just as many of those sweet, sweet organs.
Out of curiosity, if I'm an atheist, why should I respect someone's religious beliefs after they're dead— especially to the point of causing another death?
And you don't get to escalate the feelings of losing a family member over the religious indignity.
Excellent. Since we're past feelings which system involves people not dying as much?
Neither. Opt-in is working better than opt-out is in some countries. It's all about education, not the implied choice.
And in others opt out is working better. But with the worst case scenario of possibly more lives saved. Even if it was only a couple hundred that'd be plenty reason.
Very few is it working better in. The others it's negligible. You're just going to promote a system of "The evil government thinks that if I don't say something they have a right to take my tasty organs, fuck that, I'm opting out because of the evil government." You're going to lose a lot of potential donors because of a forcible system that's doing something they may not agree with. What's the other doing? "Fuck I have to opt-int, that's a violation of my rights because it should be implied, I'm not going to sign it because I think it should change!" Yeah, dream on. Opt-in is the less callous 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
Very few is it working better in. The others it's negligible. You're just going to promote a system of "The evil government thinks that if I don't say something they have a right to take my tasty organs, fuck that, I'm opting out because of the evil government." You're going to lose a lot of potential donors because of a forcible system that's doing something they may not agree with. What's the other doing? "Fuck I have to opt-int, that's a violation of my rights because it should be implied, I'm not going to sign it because I think it should change!" Yeah, dream on. Opt-in is the less callous system.
What proof do you have that potential organ donors would be lossed? Who would be willing to sign up as an organ donor, but when it's done for them automatically say "Oh fuck that, screw saving lives now!" Show me the poll where this happens. And you can add loaded words all you like but this system isn't forcing any more than blood transfusions are, which you can also opt out of. It's a convenience to those who want to, takes advantage of those who don't care either way, and doesn't put those who want to opt out through any more trouble than those who want to opt in have to now.
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.
EDIT: Especially when there is an alternative policy that nets us just as many of those sweet, sweet organs.
Out of curiosity, if I'm an atheist, why should I respect someone's religious beliefs after they're dead— especially to the point of causing another death?
Then why allow people to opt-out at all?
EDIT: If you honestly support a straight-up mandatory system, then I guess I can respect that. I won't agree, but there's really no point arguing when there's no possible common ground.
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.
EDIT: Especially when there is an alternative policy that nets us just as many of those sweet, sweet organs.
Out of curiosity, if I'm an atheist, why should I respect someone's religious beliefs after they're dead— especially to the point of causing another death?
Then why allow people to opt-out at all?
Because the religious people who are alive would throw a shit-fit otherwise.
Track, why do you want to trample the beliefs of people who want the opt out? Why do you hate their religions and want to oppress them?
Edit: Basically what I'm asking is why do you want to shit all over their religion?
So, preference for an opt-out is a religion now? And who's shitting on your right to donate? - it's already there, multi-faceted and with safe-guards in place. It just requires you actually want to save a life enough to take a minor action and discuss the matter with your family. That is unless you're cruel enough to want it, but leave that little surprise for your nearest and dearest in a time when they may be foolish enough to feel something approaching grief.
Still waiting to hear why opt-out should be implemented in favor of more effective solutions, like tackling current system deficiencies, poor public awareness and education, resource limitations, inadequacies and boundaries in the utilization of live transplants, or factors actually influencing the growing number of people on the list(s) in the first place.
But none of those would get straight to trivializing and dismissing people's personal beliefs, grief, views of death and sentiment for their loved ones.
So, preference for an opt-out is a religion now? And who's shitting on your right to donate? - it's already there, multi-faceted and with safe-guards in place. It just requires you actually want to save a life enough to take a minor action and discuss the matter with your family.
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.
Still waiting to hear why opt-out should be implemented in favor of more effective solutions, like tackling current system deficiencies, poor public awareness and education, resource limitations, inadequacies and boundaries in the utilization of live transplants, or factors actually influencing the growing number of people on the list(s) in the first place.
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.
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.
And saving lives at the expense of beliefs, to some, doesn't elevate opt-out above opt-in.
We are arguing, after all, ethics and morals. Your beliefs that opt-out violate some hidden moral obligation that every human has is no better than some judeo-christian belief that preserving the body of the dead allows for transcendence. Opt-out is no better than opt-in if we're going to argue that this is now a "well you're shitting on my beliefs because I think opt-out should be default." And if that's the case, we need to find something that's better, not the inverse.
I share your beliefs, I don't agree that this is the best way. You are shitting on other's system of beliefs whether you care or not. I don't care if it's to allow them to see the unicorn, they're allowed to believe it over saving a life. Because this isn't a socialist government, not yet anyways.
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, 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.
And saving lives at the expense of beliefs, to some, doesn't elevate opt-out above opt-in.
We are arguing, after all, ethics and morals. Your beliefs that opt-out violate some hidden moral obligation that every human has is no better than some judeo-christian belief that preserving the body of the dead allows for transcendence. Opt-out is no better than opt-in if we're going to argue that this is now a "well you're shitting on my beliefs because I think opt-out should be default." And if that's the case, we need to find something that's better, not the inverse.
I share your beliefs, I don't agree that this is the best way. You are shitting on other's system of beliefs whether you care or not. I don't care if it's to allow them to see the unicorn, they're allowed to believe it over saving a life. Because this isn't a socialist government, not yet anyways.
You do realise that in an opt-out system you can opt-out? That's where the name comes from. You seem to be arguing against some kind of mandatory system here.
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.
And saving lives at the expense of beliefs, to some, doesn't elevate opt-out above opt-in.
We are arguing, after all, ethics and morals. Your beliefs that opt-out violate some hidden moral obligation that every human has is no better than some judeo-christian belief that preserving the body of the dead allows for transcendence. Opt-out is no better than opt-in if we're going to argue that this is now a "well you're shitting on my beliefs because I think opt-out should be default." And if that's the case, we need to find something that's better, not the inverse.
I share your beliefs, I don't agree that this is the best way. You are shitting on other's system of beliefs whether you care or not. I don't care if it's to allow them to see the unicorn, they're allowed to believe it over saving a life. Because this isn't a socialist government, not yet anyways.
You do realise that in an opt-out system you can opt-out? That's where the name comes from. You seem to be arguing against some kind of mandatory system here.
And you can opt-in if it means anything to you. But, again, if we must, there will be a lot more potential fuck ups with an opt-out system than opt-in. Except the opt-in took consideration that mistakes do happen and you're not going to have an out-cry to it.
If you opt-in, you know there's a chance your organs won't be used anyways right?
And again, if the point is to save lives, your best bet is to become a live donor. This solves the problem completely and is better for everyone. Way better. So much better. Would you rather have the list repopulate every few years, or every few decades?
I mean, you're morally bankrupt if you don't do this (someone used as an argument for defense) and we should totally mandate a system that does and if you don't you should opt out (another argument used for defense), and then we can ridicule you because you hold beliefs we don't (because you're different).
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
We are arguing, after all, ethics and morals. Your beliefs that opt-out violate some hidden moral obligation that every human has is no better than some judeo-christian belief that preserving the body of the dead allows for transcendence. Opt-out is no better than opt-in if we're going to argue that this is now a "well you're shitting on my beliefs because I think opt-out should be default."
What proof do you have that potential organ donors would be lossed? Who would be willing to sign up as an organ donor, but when it's done for them automatically say "Oh fuck that, screw saving lives now!" Show me the poll where this happens. And you can add loaded words all you like but this system isn't forcing any more than blood transfusions are, which you can also opt out of. It's a convenience to those who want to, takes advantage of those who don't care either way, and doesn't put those who want to opt out through any more trouble than those who want to opt in have to now.
And you can opt-in if it means anything to you. But, again, if we must, there will be a lot more potential fuck ups with an opt-out system than opt-in.
We are arguing, after all, ethics and morals. Your beliefs that opt-out violate some hidden moral obligation that every human has is no better than some judeo-christian belief that preserving the body of the dead allows for transcendence. Opt-out is no better than opt-in if we're going to argue that this is now a "well you're shitting on my beliefs because I think opt-out should be default."
What proof do you have that potential organ donors would be lossed? Who would be willing to sign up as an organ donor, but when it's done for them automatically say "Oh fuck that, screw saving lives now!" Show me the poll where this happens. And you can add loaded words all you like but this system isn't forcing any more than blood transfusions are, which you can also opt out of. It's a convenience to those who want to, takes advantage of those who don't care either way, and doesn't put those who want to opt out through any more trouble than those who want to opt in have to now.
its interesting that every single person already registered as an organ donor supports it
a friend of my mother's was ranting to me today, saying "well I WAS going to become an organ donor but if they bring in this compulsory system, I'll opt out just on principle!". I felt like punching her. Instead I asked why she felt the need to deny people life-saving organs "on principle". She didn't respond.
There's one, at least.
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, 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.
And saving lives at the expense of beliefs, to some, doesn't elevate opt-out above opt-in.
We are arguing, after all, ethics and morals. Your beliefs that opt-out violate some hidden moral obligation that every human has is no better than some judeo-christian belief that preserving the body of the dead allows for transcendence. Opt-out is no better than opt-in if we're going to argue that this is now a "well you're shitting on my beliefs because I think opt-out should be default." And if that's the case, we need to find something that's better, not the inverse.
I share your beliefs, I don't agree that this is the best way. You are shitting on other's system of beliefs whether you care or not. I don't care if it's to allow them to see the unicorn, they're allowed to believe it over saving a life. Because this isn't a socialist government, not yet anyways.
You do realise that in an opt-out system you can opt-out? That's where the name comes from. You seem to be arguing against some kind of mandatory system here.
And you can opt-in if it means anything to you. But, again, if we must, there will be a lot more potential fuck ups with an opt-out system than opt-in. Except the opt-in took consideration that mistakes do happen and you're not going to have an out-cry to it.
If you opt-in, you know there's a chance your organs won't be used anyways right?
And again, if the point is to save lives, your best bet is to become a live donor. This solves the problem completely and is better for everyone. Way better. So much better. Would you rather have the list repopulate every few years, or every few decades?
I mean, you're morally bankrupt if you don't do this (someone used as an argument for defense) and we should totally mandate a system that does and if you don't you should opt out (another argument used for defense), and then we can ridicule you because you hold beliefs we don't (because you're different).
It all comes down to what you see as the larger potential fuckup then, taking someones organs who wouldn't have wanted that or someone dying. I think it's quite clear what side of this I'm on.
Starcross on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited May 2008
Can we stop exaggerating (zomg lets just openly kill people for their organs for example) maybe? It makes us all look childish.
And you can opt-in if it means anything to you. But, again, if we must, there will be a lot more potential fuck ups with an opt-out system than opt-in.
Your proof of this?
Well, will you accept hypothetical proof since, hypothetically, opt-out is better in theory but not always in practice?
Paperwork gets lost, infrequently, but it does happen. Of course, you'll also want to make sure 17 year old Joe-bob at the county data entry office made sure to type your name with that, there apostrophes.
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
Paperwork gets lost, infrequently, but it does happen. Of course, you'll also want to make sure 17 year old Joe-bob at the county data entry office made sure to type your name with that, there apostrophes.
And this happens less with opt in why?
Quid on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
And you can opt-in if it means anything to you. But, again, if we must, there will be a lot more potential fuck ups with an opt-out system than opt-in.
Your proof of this?
Well, will you accept hypothetical proof since, hypothetically, opt-out is better in theory but not always in practice?
Paperwork gets lost, infrequently, but it does happen. Of course, you'll also want to make sure 17 year old Joe-bob at the county data entry office made sure to type your name with that, there apostrophes.
Wouldn't the worst possible consequence of an opt-out system be a defiled corpse, while the worst possible consequence of an opt-in system is a lot more corpses?
I can see not wanting anything done to your body post-mortem, I just don't particularly care if 1/1000 people accidentally lose their kidneys slightly earlier than their religion proscribes.
Paperwork gets lost, infrequently, but it does happen. Of course, you'll also want to make sure 17 year old Joe-bob at the county data entry office made sure to type your name with that, there apostrophes.
And this happens less with opt in why?
There's less paperwork.
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.
I mean, if you want to contend that it won't ever happen because I'm using some sort of statistic because of the influx of paperwork, 'kay.
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
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
And you can opt-in if it means anything to you. But, again, if we must, there will be a lot more potential fuck ups with an opt-out system than opt-in.
Your proof of this?
Well, will you accept hypothetical proof since, hypothetically, opt-out is better in theory but not always in practice?
Paperwork gets lost, infrequently, but it does happen. Of course, you'll also want to make sure 17 year old Joe-bob at the county data entry office made sure to type your name with that, there apostrophes.
Wouldn't the worst possible consequence of an opt-out system be a defiled corpse, while the worst possible consequence of an opt-in system is a lot more corpses?
I can see not wanting anything done to your body post-mortem, I just don't particularly care if 1/1000 people accidentally lose their kidneys slightly earlier than their religion proscribes.
The corpse is already defiled just by being prepared for burial.
THEY VACUUM THE SHIT OUT YOUR ASS AND FILL YOU WITH CHEMICALS.
I'm pretty sure God either already has a problem with that or, being omnipotent, doesn't need your physical body parts to get your soul to heaven.
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.
And you can opt-in if it means anything to you. But, again, if we must, there will be a lot more potential fuck ups with an opt-out system than opt-in.
Your proof of this?
Well, will you accept hypothetical proof since, hypothetically, opt-out is better in theory but not always in practice?
Paperwork gets lost, infrequently, but it does happen. Of course, you'll also want to make sure 17 year old Joe-bob at the county data entry office made sure to type your name with that, there apostrophes.
Wouldn't the worst possible consequence of an opt-out system be a defiled corpse, while the worst possible consequence of an opt-in system is a lot more corpses?
I can see not wanting anything done to your body post-mortem, I just don't particularly care if 1/1000 people accidentally lose their kidneys slightly earlier than their religion proscribes.
The corpse is already defiled just by being prepared for burial.
THEY VACUUM THE SHIT OUT YOUR ASS AND FILL YOU WITH CHEMICALS.
I'm pretty sure God either already has a problem with that or, being omnipotent, doesn't need your physical body parts to get your soul to heaven.
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.
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
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?
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
I agree, no good can come from switching. It's best to implement a universal polling system requiring a decision rather than an implied decision.
But, what about illegals who don't do the paperwork a normal citizen does? (First hospital visit?)
And you don't get to escalate the feelings of losing a family member over the religious indignity.
I'd like to think that I'm not generally a giant raging hypocrite. As it stands, yes I would rather lose a family member than have them live over somebody's religious objections. If my wife had gotten a lung from that Mexican dude in the CourtTV story (assuming the veracity of it, just hypothetically), I'd feel like absolute shit.
Quit acting like I wouldn't apply my own fucking standards to myself.
I think we've seen how, even if the story wasn't true, it would hypothetically play out.
Neither. Opt-in is working better than opt-out is in some countries. It's all about education, not the implied choice.
Then I guess my position is "fuck those uber-socialist pricks, and their not giving more than passing lip service to consent when doing so would have the exact same fucking net effect in terms of lives saved."
I'm not going to support a system I have a serious objection to, just because it will provide an improvement in one sense, when a less objectionable system would have the exact same effect. I'm going to call the people who proposed the system assholes, oppose it, and suggest maybe they try the more sensible system.
I mean, I'll pay my taxes and let you give some of that money to poor people, it's cool. You don't need to send somebody from the IRS to kick me in the balls yearly along with it. Especially when the non-ball-kicking system helps poor people out just as much. And, in fact, I will vehemently oppose the ball-kicking system and suggest that you implement the non-ball-kicking system instead. It's not because I hate poor people, or want them to starve...if you fail to implement the non-ball-kicking system, then their starvation is on you, not me.
EDIT: Sorry, I tried to come up with a horrible car analogy, and finally found a situation where it wasn't possible. You'll have to accept this horrible non-car analogy instead.
There's just a tiny difference between the two, there. I'll let you figure it out.
Out of curiosity, if I'm an atheist, why should I respect someone's religious beliefs after they're dead— especially to the point of causing another death?
Very few is it working better in. The others it's negligible. You're just going to promote a system of "The evil government thinks that if I don't say something they have a right to take my tasty organs, fuck that, I'm opting out because of the evil government." You're going to lose a lot of potential donors because of a forcible system that's doing something they may not agree with. What's the other doing? "Fuck I have to opt-int, that's a violation of my rights because it should be implied, I'm not going to sign it because I think it should change!" Yeah, dream on. Opt-in is the less callous system.
Then why allow people to opt-out at all?
EDIT: If you honestly support a straight-up mandatory system, then I guess I can respect that. I won't agree, but there's really no point arguing when there's no possible common ground.
Because the religious people who are alive would throw a shit-fit otherwise.
So, preference for an opt-out is a religion now? And who's shitting on your right to donate? - it's already there, multi-faceted and with safe-guards in place. It just requires you actually want to save a life enough to take a minor action and discuss the matter with your family. That is unless you're cruel enough to want it, but leave that little surprise for your nearest and dearest in a time when they may be foolish enough to feel something approaching grief.
Still waiting to hear why opt-out should be implemented in favor of more effective solutions, like tackling current system deficiencies, poor public awareness and education, resource limitations, inadequacies and boundaries in the utilization of live transplants, or factors actually influencing the growing number of people on the list(s) in the first place.
But none of those would get straight to trivializing and dismissing people's personal beliefs, grief, views of death and sentiment for their loved ones.
Watch this:
This is why your argument fails. It doesn't elevate opt in above opt out.
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.
And saving lives at the expense of beliefs, to some, doesn't elevate opt-out above opt-in.
We are arguing, after all, ethics and morals. Your beliefs that opt-out violate some hidden moral obligation that every human has is no better than some judeo-christian belief that preserving the body of the dead allows for transcendence. Opt-out is no better than opt-in if we're going to argue that this is now a "well you're shitting on my beliefs because I think opt-out should be default." And if that's the case, we need to find something that's better, not the inverse.
I share your beliefs, I don't agree that this is the best way. You are shitting on other's system of beliefs whether you care or not. I don't care if it's to allow them to see the unicorn, they're allowed to believe it over saving a life. Because this isn't a socialist government, not yet anyways.
You do realise that in an opt-out system you can opt-out? That's where the name comes from. You seem to be arguing against some kind of mandatory system here.
And you can opt-in if it means anything to you. But, again, if we must, there will be a lot more potential fuck ups with an opt-out system than opt-in. Except the opt-in took consideration that mistakes do happen and you're not going to have an out-cry to it.
If you opt-in, you know there's a chance your organs won't be used anyways right?
And again, if the point is to save lives, your best bet is to become a live donor. This solves the problem completely and is better for everyone. Way better. So much better. Would you rather have the list repopulate every few years, or every few decades?
I mean, you're morally bankrupt if you don't do this (someone used as an argument for defense) and we should totally mandate a system that does and if you don't you should opt out (another argument used for defense), and then we can ridicule you because you hold beliefs we don't (because you're different).
There's one, at least.
It all comes down to what you see as the larger potential fuckup then, taking someones organs who wouldn't have wanted that or someone dying. I think it's quite clear what side of this I'm on.
Well, will you accept hypothetical proof since, hypothetically, opt-out is better in theory but not always in practice?
Paperwork gets lost, infrequently, but it does happen. Of course, you'll also want to make sure 17 year old Joe-bob at the county data entry office made sure to type your name with that, there apostrophes.
I didn't say that. I said become a live donor. You don't need to die to do this. Livers and kidneys especially (not sure about the rest).
I wasn't talking about you, someone else.
Wouldn't the worst possible consequence of an opt-out system be a defiled corpse, while the worst possible consequence of an opt-in system is a lot more corpses?
I can see not wanting anything done to your body post-mortem, I just don't particularly care if 1/1000 people accidentally lose their kidneys slightly earlier than their religion proscribes.
There's less paperwork.
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.
I mean, if you want to contend that it won't ever happen because I'm using some sort of statistic because of the influx of paperwork, 'kay.
The corpse is already defiled just by being prepared for burial.
THEY VACUUM THE SHIT OUT YOUR ASS AND FILL YOU WITH CHEMICALS.
I'm pretty sure God either already has a problem with that or, being omnipotent, doesn't need your physical body parts to get your soul to heaven.
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.
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.
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?