Karl`s PC Help Forums

Presumed consent?
marymary100 - 13-1-2008 at 10:04

Do you think that the rules on organ donation should be changed so that we need to opt out of the list rather than opt in?

Are people who do not opt in at present just too busy to get around to filling in the form, or it is that they are still not comfortable with the thought of being incomplete when buried?

article


TooCute4Words - 13-1-2008 at 10:40

My mother and father both have Multi-Donor cards which basically means that they are willing to give any part of their body away when they die. They have suggested that I should get one to, but I am rather superstitious about it and choose to have all parts of my body - 'organs and all' in tact. Even though they shall all end up in flames once the incinerator goes to work and I get cremated. :(

I think it's just superstition really that stops people from doing it. Or perhaps lazyness or a 'couldn't care less' attitude - one of the three


SRD - 13-1-2008 at 10:56

I don't really have a problem with opt out rather than opt in as long as one's wishes are followed.
I think it is true that a larger number of people would be donors but haven't got round to, or have a superstition about, actually signing up.
As a community we also need more donors, if for no other reason than to reduce the excuse for genetic experimentation.

However, I will be opting out as I don't trust the medical profession:
An enthusiastic surgeon, who knows that he may well be able to successfully treat a patient with a donated organ, may well justify the shortening of another life (who hasn't long to go anyway) to reach that end.
I already have some difficulty with the medical profession's definition of death.
I don't think that the decision on life or death should be the responsibility of the doctors treating the patient.


Dreamweaver - 13-1-2008 at 11:04

All my family know I intend to donate (if possible).
Assuming the intent is only to use when neccessary and not harvest for the sake of it, I see it as a good plan.

But I do wonder how far down the line "use for medical science "will be added to the list.


SRD - 13-1-2008 at 11:08

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamweaver
All my family know I intend to donate (if possible).
Assuming the intent is only to use when neccessary and not harvest for the sake of it, I see it as a good plan.

But I do wonder how far down the line "use for medical science "will be added to the list.
Odddly enough I'm not worried what they do when I am dead, it's what they might do in the inbetween bit that bothers me.


janet - 13-1-2008 at 12:11

I'd prefer opt out to opt in, for adults....


LSemmens - 13-1-2008 at 13:58

When I'm well and truly dead, they can have what they like, I won't need it any more! I believe the "opt out" approach should be the norm. As for your concerns, Simon, if organs, and such, were more readily available, then the issue of "in between" will become moot!


dr john - 14-1-2008 at 17:41

The card in my pocket says you can have my whole body.




But the nurses keep turning me down for some reason...
shocked_yellow


Like janet I'd go for opt out, for adults.


victor - 14-1-2008 at 18:02

It sounds a bit Burke And Hareish to me.

Just because people are to lazy to get a card does not mean you should change the law,
More advertising is needed


scholar - 14-1-2008 at 18:07

A radio program discussion of this was playing the audio from the Monty Python skit. It had parts something like:

Doctor--"OK, take his liver."
"But, Doctor, I'm still using it."

Doctor--"He's dead."
"But, he says he's not!"

roffle roffle roffle


scholar - 14-1-2008 at 18:18

Does anyone know of a religion which teaches against organ donation?

I remember once being told that some Jewish people keep their body parts, for burial together, in anticipation of the resurrection. The person who related this to me said that if a Jewish man had an arm severed in an accident, he would keep it to have it eventually buried with his body.

I have not verified this. Somehow, when I speak with Jewish people, the subject of severed limbs and burial has never come up.shocked_yellow:D

But that was not related in the context of parts that would be useful to someone else. Sometimes, there is more than one value to consider, if neither is absolute.


My intuition is that Jehovah's Witnesses would have some objection, because some blood transfer would be involved.


The point of the question: If there is a religious group that teaches against organ transfer, and a person is a dedicated member of that group, I don't think the government's presumption should prevail. Ideally, the person would opt out, but we all know people who put off such matters (they don't make a will, either).


victor - 14-1-2008 at 19:21

Surely it comes under the tenth commandment. waggyfinger


John_Little - 14-1-2008 at 19:25

Well, it cant be rule number one.

But, as Simon says, as long as they ask first and I dont answer.

John


scholar - 14-1-2008 at 19:34

Quote:
Originally posted by victor
Surely it comes under the tenth commandment. waggyfinger
I would think not. The commandment (or commandments, depending on how you number them) that forbids coveting means not wrongly to desire what rightfully is someone else's. It cannot logically mean that a person never desires anything in any way, or one could never buy something that belongs to one's neighbor.

When the other person is dead, he will not object to the transfer of an organ he is not using. Indeed, he may indicate in advance that he wishes to pass on anything of use.

Does this make sense to you, Victor?


victor - 14-1-2008 at 19:43

Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
Quote:
Originally posted by victor
Surely it comes under the tenth commandment. waggyfinger
I would think not. The commandment (or commandments, depending on how you number them) that forbids coveting means not wrongly to desire what rightfully is someone else's. It cannot logically mean that a person never desires anything in any way, or one could never buy something that belongs to one's neighbor.

When the other person is dead, he will not object to the transfer of an organ he is not using. Indeed, he may indicate in advance that he wishes to pass on anything of use.

Does this make sense to you, Victor?


Your body belongs to someone and that is not the state, so the state cannot make claim to it by passing a law. if they do they are taking possession of that body so will they also pay for the funeral or disposal of the body? I think not.
Plunder it for anything useful and let someone else pick up the bill.


scholar - 14-1-2008 at 20:06

I see your point, Victor. I was thinking in terms of the prospective donor and the recipient.

In the way you present it, it would even be stealing.

I have heard a conservative, Walter E. Williams, argue that one should be allowed to sell body parts, without the state preventing it. He says, they don't belong to the government, they belong to you (or to your heirs, when you are done with them).