The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
[Australia] Opt-out organ donation
Posts
No, the question goes to the actually merit behind the argument against organ donation, which seems to be lacking anything scientific or rational. I equate it to separate but equal laws, or any other change that must be put forth even if people are unwilling to accept it. The majority isn't always right, and for me this is a case of that.
Ah but you say 'what if they pass your kooky law, then they are magically right because they agree with you yes'?
To which I say, 'I'm not right, the policy is right according to the data I've seen'.
So basically, to make a post short (too late!) to me this is no more unreasonable than having to pay taxes.
We don't do regular referendums. We have a representative democracy. If we are constantly voting on issues, nothing would get done because everything would have to wait until election time, and what is the point of having politicians?
When these issues get discussed in parliament, you voice your opinion to your local representative. The parties also do polling themselves to get an idea of how an issue is supported by the populace. If it is truly unpopular, it will not pass.
Everyone outside of Australia keeps telling us to basically not trust our politicians on issues that would get them thrown out of office at the next elections. How corrupt are your governmental systems? It's mindboggling for me to think that this would get passed in Australia if people thought it was a bad idea.
you don't know us very well!
or you could have read my posts from last night, but I guess 'read the fucking thread' was magically disappeared from the rules thread, without even a referendum.
I don't think you really know what hard science requires, given the contents of this page, and also we won't miss you.
It's pretty offensive to have the physical remains of the people in your life referred to variously as 'decaying, rotting corpses' and the other vulgar little phrases being bandied around here. Human remains =! blocks of wood. Want to label that belief as 'narcissistic and superstitious', fine, then yours is equally 'trite and immature'. See, solved nothing.
Oh and, I'm not religious (and the fact i have to point this out, lest i be labelled as an idiot off-hand, is pretty sad too).
.....
Really though, this is forced altruism, which is fine, up to a point...
But what if there was a proposal to press-gang people into helping local charities. How about penalties for failing to help old ladies cross the road. How about conscription, i mean you won't let your fellow countrymen fight wars for you while you sit at home right (oh but you can be a conscientious objector, so its fine)? Those aren't even as serious as the decision how your remains should be dealt with.
Those dont sound like laws id like to pass, but maybe i just enjoy my freedom to choose to help others.
Feeling good about unforced charity ranks somewhat below people dying because they don't have organs on my list of priorities personally.
I wouldn't worry about it. If you were looking for indicators that opt-out isn't the be-all and end-all solution to donar shortages then you could have pointed out Sweden, which despite having an opt-out system has a donar rate lower that many opt-in nations such as the UK.
Or, you could have brought up that Spain, despite having one of the highest donar rates and an opt-out system, doesn't attribute it's success to the opt-out which was implemented in 1979. During the 10 years after the implementation of it's opt-out system, donar rates remained largely unchanged until they significantly revamped the system with such measures as drastically increasing the number of ICU beds and the number of transplant co-ordinators., increasing awareness and better promotion of the donation system.
Or, you could have brought up the fact that the US, which runs a system of informed consent, has a higher donar rate than France, Belgium and Sweden, all of which have opt-out systems.
You could also have brought up the fact that most donars are accident victims and thus countries with higher traffic accident rates - such as Spain - tend to have higher numbers of viable donars. On the other hand, countries with better road safety records tend to have poorer donation rates as organs from age or disease related deaths are typically not viable. Again, nothing to do with opt-out but conveniently glossed over.
From my own argument, i could have cited any number of examples of distress caused through non-consenting organ removal and the potential for even worse abuse under the more easily exploited opt-out system. Alder Hey would have been a good one considering the damage it did to the organ donar system in the UK and the pain cause to so many.
But as you've seen, there's little merit in doing so
What's funny is, there is no such thing as "presumed consent", it's simply a underhand way of saying "without consent" and would be vehemently opposed if applied to any other subject. Apply it to crime, politics or even sex and imagine the uproar that would follow. Apply spurious moral justification and group of people holding their own beliefs above those of everyone else however, and you've got what religions have been critisized for for centuries..
Buying that new game when people are dying for lack of a $1 mosquito net should rank pretty low on people's list of priorities too under that logic, yet I don't see too many people doing it.
It's cheaper and more viable too. Shall we legislate it?
Not at all. See for example the debates over euthanasia / pulling the plug. There's a presumed consent that the comatose invalid doesn't want that, when often the family know they do/did. There's presumed consent for blood transfusions, which some religious groups totally object to.
Address the point then, ''where do you stop forced charity?''. Dont use the line 'omg people are DYING', because people are always dying, they're dying in Iraq too.
So address conscription as an example, shouldn't the draft be brought back in, so you can help fight the evils of this world? Conscientious objection could be registered, so whats the problem? It's win-win. Less of your contrymen and women die because of a superior number of armed forces, bad guys get shot, its great!
...
What we're debating is what should be the status quo. In my opinion, nothing has changed in culture or opinion that would make the shift from opt-in to opt-out needed. Have people suddenly become less attached to their bodies? Has religion taken a massive hit? It might seem so in this forum, but it has not. So if nothing has changed, if people's opinions have not changed, why change the system in a manner which assumes change on their part. Thats what this is, it assumes a change of opinion.
...
How to implement either the opt-out or opt-in policy is also material, it's simple to advertise for opt-in, but would the opposite exist? Advertisments informing people of their right to opt out? Are you kidding me? (*Proud man staring at the camera*, ''i opted out, just 'cause, y'know.')
I prefer the option which allows the citizens rights to be as advertised as much as possible, and that exists with opt-in. (Hey you saved my life with that liver, you're awesome, *lil' timmy able to ride his bike again*)
...
Just to bring a bit of real word experience to this, opt-out reminds me of a practice that was carried out in the 1980's here in Ireland by doctors. Standard post mortems included a harvesting of organs on which research into disease was carried out. Win-win right? Noone was using the typically diseased organs, pathologists could study them for possible aids to our understanding, great!
Except the problems with a system which is closer to the 'assumed' end of the scale became rapidly apparant:
- A huge number of childrens organs were harvested, without consent, since this was standard practice, the parents were never told. This caused great emotional hardship when the truth was later found out. At huge cost to the state, and to the medical professions integrity, two (and now a third) inquiry's were set up, and multiple law suits were held. 'Medical Paternalism' is a phrase uttered with a grimace by most medical professionals in Ireland, in which i include myself. People don't like it when ownership of their bodies, or the bodies of their loved ones, is assumed to be nil by the state.
- Corruption exists in a system like this. It turned out organs in some cases were being sent (or even sold!) to pharmaceutical companies, companies which then used research on those organs to create profit for themselves. Again, ethically dubious.
Linkies: http://www.mlaw.ie/Organ-Retention
You mean like raise taxes to fund foreign aid?
Yeah, I believe we shall legislate it.
Taxation is not charity, and the point remains that if more lives can be saved, shouldn't legislation be brought in to do just that?
If saving lives is of such paramount importance that it should be held above all else, then there are far easier and more readily availible means of doing so. Shouldn't they be high on people's lists too?
Is that $60 game more important than a life, let alone 10, 20 or more? the most important thing is saving lives remember - damn people's beliefs and their feelings. If it can be justified with the chance of saving a life, then that's all that matters, right?
Or is saving lives only important when it only "inconveniences" others and doesn't conflict with your own beliefs?
Food stamps pose the same dilemma.
Justify your concern, because clearly food stamps and other measures have not created a dystopian nightmare world.
Taxes are spent on charity. This isn't complicated. They're spent on charity for citizens of the state and given away as charity to citizens of foreign states. Democracy decides how much. If people valued others' lives more, a greater proportion of taxation would be spent on charity.
It's not tax - if it's to save a life it's donation. We're into semantics now.
I'm sure Southerners felt the same way when the Union soldiers marched through and freed the slaves.
All pouting because their beliefs were being trampled on. "Hey, this is mine."
Well, that's politics.
So you're saying that the level of enforced altruism should be decided democratically, perhaps with, oh i dont know, a vote on it?
Heh. Read the earlier parts of the thread where a vote is a waste of time, and people are being selfish pricks for asking for one, because they wouldnt pass it.
Right. So, why is the life of a person needing a donar more important than the life of a dozen starving or diseased folks?
State takes personal property, disposes of it for public purpose.
I couldn't care less what you call it, and it inhibits freedom even less than run of the mill taxation. The nearest analogy would by the estate tax.
It's been mentioned several times by numerous posters: we have representative democracy.
Nah. The legislature should just do it.
People can throw the members out if they get angry.
That's how a Republic works.
We have referendums here where certain rights (constitutional, generally, but not always) are debated and changed in legislature.
Last time i checked this was in the Republic of Ireland
You'll have to pardon me, but my experience as an American gives me an extremely low opinion of referendums.
In any case, why should this be a referendum issue? Because you feel strongly about it? Everyone feels strongly about something.
The state does it in a number of ways - not all of which are referred to as taxation.
In any case, given that saving a life is paramount - top of the list - priority number one - is legislation such as that which I proposed not only justified, but neccesary?
Or is this whole "save a life" angle only applicable if it doesn't inconvenience you?
Your angle on this is completely asinine. What lengths should we go to to help others? The answer: as far as we want, with the minimum standard expressed by the democratic will of the people and codified in taxation laws.
My aren't we eager to press the personal hypocrisy attack.
Shall I probe for some life saving measure you support and accuse you of double dog hypocrisy?
But to answer your question, I don't think that government taxation of all disposable income would really be a net benefit or save lives. All those poor mango farmers, chinese factory workers and software designers out of work, rioting, killing and eating each other. Sad sauce.
What lengths should we go to to help others?
And we're back to the point of the discussion. There are any number of legislative measures which would be far less intrusive, exponentially less complicated, far more sensitive and considerably more effective in saving lives than removing the need for consent from organ donation, and yet they're considered asinine because they go against the beliefs of others.
"Opt-out will save lives so damn anything, any feelings and any beliefs to the contrary in order to save lives" - This thread, paraphrased.
That would be the saving lives angle debunked - it only seems to matter so long as it only offends, inconveniences or goes against the beliefs of someone else. A hollow sentiment used to justify one set of beliefs over all others.
I.. I just answered you.
So why not? Why shouldn't this happen? Nobody that's against it has even tried to make a compelling argument against it.
You're right, man
It's all just be talk of Gwen Stefani, white Vs. black truffles and honeydew melons.
Good call :^:
You haven't really argued against it as much as you've made pedantic arguments about what you think the government should and shouldn't do. I don't know, you didn't really seem to have a point. Adhoc's the only one that's tried to make a real point about the whole thing with the corruption angle, but it seems to me that more organs in the system will reduce corruption rather than encourage it.