BF2S Forums Organ donation: Opt in or opt out?

Great idea, one of the first thigns i did when i got the internet, well within a month anyway was to put myself on that list.

Just thought i'd post the link for people. register dammit, unless you don't want to or have some infectious disease.

http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/how_ … onsent.jsp

PureFodder wrote:

Will it result in doctors not trying as hard to save your life if they think they can reap your organs to save others?

No of course not, what would the doctor care whether he saves your life or somebody elses; save he shall? Except of course the suggested donor would be the respected doctors daugther or something, but I doubt they would even let him/her "work" on you at all, with such a personal interest.

Considering the "no no, is a yes" rule, I'm dead against it. You simply don't have the right to exploit somebody's corpse without him/her explicitly giving permission. Your body is still yours even if your dead. It's not about whats practical or what saves the most lives, it's about principles. "Get your f*cking hands of my dead body!"

What if someone dies on an unexpected moment (which is the case with a large number of suitable donors) and haven't yet registred. They were on their way to post the "no" letter and got hit by a car, so they didn't have a chance. Or what if a young person dies, who hasn't even given it much thought? What if a child dies, will the parents be asked? What if the parents aren't around at the moment. Will they find their dead child hollowed out later?

I know that in Holland the current system is that if you haven't registered a yes or a no, they'll ask your relatives. I think that should suffice, since their is someone telling the doctors whether it's a yes or a no and they can't say "well we don't know because nobody told us". If a person hasn't got any relatives, well then bad luck! If the doctors are dissapointed in the number of donor organs that this system produces, it's not a flaw in the system, it's people's choice. I'm getting the impression the new system is meant to "grab what you can, while they are not looking" to solve the shortage of organs, because the issue is not that people forget to register, but simply don't want to.

A solution to the organ shortage on the long term would be the genetic adaptation of animals; they think they can produce pig's with hearts that can be transplanted to humans. Only then, the same people shouting to harvest every unattended corpse in sight, call genetic engineering "unethical".

People should be given time to opt out.  For example, it could be that you are not opted in until the age of 16(?), by which if by that point you have not opted out, you are automatically opted in.

Last edited by Curtor (2007-07-17 06:58:57)

If I'm dead, then yeah.

Even then, I'm not entirely happy. Dunno why

[E.F.L]Airwolf wrote:

If I'm dead, then yeah.
Even then, I'm not entirely happy. Dunno why

Think about it from the other direction though.  If it was someone you knew that needed an organ transplant that could not be donated, and someone who never bothered to fill out their card had died, even someone else that you knew who had died, or even if you had died, and you know that your organ could save that friend's life...

Last edited by Curtor (2007-07-17 07:06:47)

Curtor wrote:

Think about it from the other direction though.  If it was someone you knew that needed an organ transplant that could not be donated, and someone who never bothered to fill out their card had died, even someone else that you knew who had died, or even if you had died, and you know that your organ could save that friend's life...

That exactly why I have not registered; that you don't know where your organs will go. I have not registered as a donor, because when I die I don't want a doctor to decide or take a list and give my organs to an ex-convict or just a lazy piece of shit. I haven't registered as a definite "no" either, so when I die my relatives will be asked. If the suggested donor indeed is a piece of shit, they'll say no, but if it's say a child and they'll say yes. The problem is that the system doesn't allow for the doctor to tell where the organ will go, but then that's the flaw in the system and not me not being automatically harvested.

Do I then believe that one person (child) has more right to live than another person (piece of shit)? Yes I do, and if you don't agree, that's absolutely fine with me; but if you won't tell me (or rather my relatives) where my organs will go you shan't have them. If you think you shouldn't tell, then that's your opinion, but my opinion is that you should. Opinions should be respected and don't try sneaking around it by accepting laws that allow you to take my organs when someone isn't watching.

Lai wrote:

Curtor wrote:

Think about it from the other direction though.  If it was someone you knew that needed an organ transplant that could not be donated, and someone who never bothered to fill out their card had died, even someone else that you knew who had died, or even if you had died, and you know that your organ could save that friend's life...

That exactly why I have not registered; that you don't know where your organs will go. I have not registered as a donor, because when I die I don't want a doctor to decide or take a list and give my organs to an ex-convict or just a lazy piece of shit. I haven't registered as a definite "no" either, so when I die my relatives will be asked. If the suggested donor indeed is a piece of shit, they'll say no, but if it's say a child and they'll say yes. The problem is that the system doesn't allow for the doctor to tell where the organ will go, but then that's the flaw in the system and not me not being automatically harvested.

Do I then believe that one person (child) has more right to live than another person (piece of shit)? Yes I do, and if you don't agree, that's absolutely fine with me; but if you won't tell me (or rather my relatives) where my organs will go you shan't have them. If you think you shouldn't tell, then that's your opinion, but my opinion is that you should. Opinions should be respected and don't try sneaking around it by accepting laws that allow you to take my organs when someone isn't watching.

Fair enough, if those are your views, I'm not going to argue with them.  But, have you informed your relatives of this point of view of yours, word for word?  Otherwise, there is the chance that, despite the fact that there is a child in need of your organs, they could just be disposed of.
Not to mention, that (I could be wrong), you do not get to be notified of who receives the organ.  I'm fairly sure it goes to the next person in line, or to whoever needs it the most.  That being said, if you don't donate to the piece of shit that is next in line, if the scenario is as so, then it just means that someone else has to before the child who may be next in line after that can receive their organ.  (I am aware, of course, that the system may work differently depending on situation or country, it is just hypothetical)

Last edited by Curtor (2007-07-17 07:54:21)

Lai wrote:

Pierre wrote:

I'm all for the principle that when you're against donation, you don't get one when you need one.

We posted simultaneously so you missed my last posts, which clarifies that i'm not "against donation".

But yes, within the current system and untill adequate artificial organs become available, you've got a point; though I doubt it would be possible to implement the particular rule.

OK.

Monitering such process closely right now, let me tell you this: not everyone makes it on the transplant list and is able to receive an organ.

You have to be in good physical shape, non smoker, no other problems, and you go through a lot of examinations to determine whether you will be accepted as a receiver. Being a convict of a lazy person will not get you on that list.

Also, since everything is not over after you receive an organ, you will have to take a lot of medication to suppress your immunesystem, and if you can't guarantee you'll follow the rules you will not make it on the list.

Lai wrote:

Curtor wrote:

Think about it from the other direction though.  If it was someone you knew that needed an organ transplant that could not be donated, and someone who never bothered to fill out their card had died, even someone else that you knew who had died, or even if you had died, and you know that your organ could save that friend's life...

That exactly why I have not registered; that you don't know where your organs will go. I have not registered as a donor, because when I die I don't want a doctor to decide or take a list and give my organs to an ex-convict or just a lazy piece of shit. I haven't registered as a definite "no" either, so when I die my relatives will be asked. If the suggested donor indeed is a piece of shit, they'll say no, but if it's say a child and they'll say yes. The problem is that the system doesn't allow for the doctor to tell where the organ will go, but then that's the flaw in the system and not me not being automatically harvested.

Do I then believe that one person (child) has more right to live than another person (piece of shit)? Yes I do, and if you don't agree, that's absolutely fine with me; but if you won't tell me (or rather my relatives) where my organs will go you shan't have them. If you think you shouldn't tell, then that's your opinion, but my opinion is that you should. Opinions should be respected and don't try sneaking around it by accepting laws that allow you to take my organs when someone isn't watching.

You really have no way of knowing if your organ donation will save the future curer of cancer or a future mass murderer. It's an interesting moral issue. If someone came up to you in the street dragging a lazy ex-convict behind and asked you if he should shoot the guy, would you say no thusly saving his life (obviously that won't ever actually happen, but it shows the principle)? Given the option to save his life via organ donation though would you choose to let him die? In both cases the life of the lazy ex-con is in your hands and in neither case does the saving of his life require any actual sacrifice on your behalf, yet the choice made could differ.

Couldn't care less of what happens to my organs when I'm gone. But I couldn't be arsed to find and fill some form to tell its OK to take my organs. So, in my opinion it would be good that if taking somebodies organs is not forbidden, then its permitted.

Lai wrote:

Pierre wrote:

You have to be in good physical shape, non smoker, no other problems, and you go through a lot of examinations to determine whether you will be accepted as a receiver. Being a convict of a lazy person will not get you on that list.

But these include physical conditions (and perhaps discipline to take the after transplant medicines) only, I don't see why an convict wouldn't be able to pass the tests (at least not in Holland).

Well, even if he is in jail, technically I don't see  reason why he shouldn't be able to receive an organ if he meets all conditions (and there are plenty). Afterall, the society that puts him in jail has the obligation to feed him and to keep him healthy.