Forced organ donation

[southernmissfan]

This is just a question I was thinking about earlier. Would it be justifiable to make everybody an organ donor? After all, one does not need organs after death. Organ donation has no effect on the donor (as the donor is obviously dead) and obviously has a positive effect on the receiver. So should society make organ donation an autmomatic, mandatory thing?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Yes. Im not a fan of dead people and there rights.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Well they don't need them anymore.

[Dóchas]

thats a pretty interesting point. i just wonder what excuses the people against it will come up with? :lol:

"he needs all of his organs for the next life!!" :lol:

[Pogue]

http://paulstott.typepad.com/photos/one/antifa_donor_card.jpg

[butterfly]

:lol:
Yes, and this should include donating your body for medical research.

[Dóchas]

http://paulstott.typepad.com/photos/one/antifa_donor_card.jpg

is that real? if it is then i love antifa even more!! antifa strike from beyond the grave!!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think having an "opt-out" organ donation scheme would cause significantly fewer headaches, but I would not mind greatly if it was mandatory.

[Bitter Ashes]

http://paulstott.typepad.com/photos/one/antifa_donor_card.jpg
Anyone entitled to sit in the house of commons? :confused:
Wouldnt that just be anyone over the age of 21 and is not currently employed by the armed forces? :lol:
Anyway, opt-out seems the best bet while there's still individual opposition. If they feel strongly enough that they dont want thier organs donating then they can pipe up.

[h0m0revolutionary]

I think having an "opt-out" organ donation scheme would cause significantly fewer headaches, but I would not mind greatly if it was mandatory.

Yeah an opt-out system would be much better, similar to Spain.

Last year there was a review by the government on this matter, but the conclusion was:

"We found from recipient families and donor families that the concept of gift was very important to them and presumed consent would undermine that concept" - Elizabeth Buggins, UK Organ Donation Taskforce

It's unbelievable- it might even be laughable if it wasn't so serious. Every year, 1000 people die waiting for a transplant. So in light of this, might I suggest something more important than the concept of gift?
Life!

I think not having this policy is a wink to the religious idiots in this country who may find some silly quote from some archaic text that means they're unable to give their organs *yawn*

[TC]

Its not "forced" because it requires no "force" to harvest organs from dead bodies. Human organisms stop being people owed any ethical consideration or dignity value after they die, except for the sake of living people, and while I think a deceased person's relatives and friends should have some consideration shown for their feelings, that consideration shouldn't outweigh the consideration shown for someone who needs organs to survive.

Having said that I would be concerned that mandatory organ donation could create perverse incentives for health care workers caring for the critically ill or terminal. There would have to be some sort of separation of duties to prevent it (i.e. no one caring for critical or terminal patients can also care for patients awaiting transplant).

[Sasha]

i think it should be mandatory but with an posibility to opt out but only if it means that those people who stay registrated get preference on the waiting list for a new organ over people who opted out.

[Pogue]

Anyone entitled to sit in the house of commons? http://www.revleft.com/vb/forced-organ-donation-t106781/revleft/smilies/confused1.gif
Wouldnt that just be anyone over the age of 21 and is not currently employed by the armed forces? http://www.revleft.com/vb/forced-organ-donation-t106781/revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif

No, because being entitled to sit in the commons means you could legally walk in and sit down and vote, i.e. you are an MP.

[Pinko Panther]

I do support mandatory organ donation. It's not like it makes any difference to the dead person.
By the way, I love the anti fascist card. Is there an American version anywhere?

[Hoxhaist]

organ donation ought to be opt out, but people who opt out should not be allowed to receive organ donations thats the only fair solution

[Revy]

I think that some people will choose cryonics - and might be reluctant to give up their organs. However, cryonics is extremely expensive anyway, so it's doubtful many people will have that option in the present.

[TC]

I think that some people will choose cryonics - and thus would be reluctant to give up their organs.


Sure they'd be reluctant, while alive, but when they're dead, why would you consider the reluctance of a now dead person who has no interests that could be harmed, over a living person who does? Why should we put bodies in exceedingly expensive coffins for the sake of deluding their survivors of a science fiction fantasy when there are people dieing who would otherwise live?

While alive someone should have an absolute right to withhold the use of their body from others, because while alive, someone's body is integral to their personhood and self...but when dead, that body is no longer integral to a person, the person doesn't exist. So why favor a non-existant person's preferences over an existant persons?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Sure they'd be reluctant, while alive, but when they're dead, why would you consider the reluctance of a now dead person who has no interests that could be harmed, over a living person who does? Why should we put bodies in exceedingly expensive coffins for the sake of deluding their survivors of a science fiction fantasy when there are people dieing who would otherwise live?

While alive someone should have an absolute right to withhold the use of their body from others, because while alive, someone's body is integral to their personhood and self...but when dead, that body is no longer integral to a person, the person doesn't exist. So why favor a non-existant person's preferences over an existant persons?

Well, I agree that such procedures are fairly ridiculous, our concept of what a person "is" is really something medical science and philosophy both heavily debate. We can establish when someone is dead, but if we could actually bring them back to life, it's considerably more hazy. The probability of them coming back to life is next to zero, so I'd still favor the organ donation being mandatory. I just think that "IF" it was a real procedure, the circumstances would be different.

As for mandatory organ donation, the political climate would need opt-out because irrational people wouldn't accept mandatory donation. Capitalists would also see it as an attack on property rights, most likely. The idea, I think, is that your body is your property, but it becomes the property of others through inheritance.

Inheritance is a tricky issue. If you own a company, and I contributed to 50% of that company despite your ownership, I think I should receive at least something proportional to my efforts. If a parent thinks they contributed significantly to the development of a deceased individual, they might have a claim to 10% or something.

[MarxSchmarx]

An alternative I like (though I've printed and signed the antifa card) is to give registered adult organ-donors preferential access to organs if they need it.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Yes, organ donation should be mandatory. As previous posters have said, the person is obviously dead so why would they need them? It would be saving many lives if the organs are avaliable when needed.


I think that some people will choose cryonics - and might be reluctant to give up their organs. However, cryonics is extremely expensive anyway, so it's doubtful many people will have that option in the present.

Wait, does that mean the Bourgeois Pigs will live longer? :confused: Damn!

[Bandito]

Yes it should. For many reasons.
Here is one that's interesting:
My sister,who is a doctor told me that donors (that are rare in Serbia,because the practicing organ donation is a semi-recent thing here) at hospitals are not safe. If someone powerful or with rich parents needs an organ, bribed doctors or medical staff won't hesitate to kill a donor that lies in the hospital for some reason and cover it up somehow.
If everyone has to give up their organs after death, such things won't happen.

Again, there are more significant reasons of why it should be "forced", but this one is interesting.

[Dr Mindbender]

it will never happen, the jehovah's witnesses would kick off.

To me though i regard organ scarcity as symptomatic of any other form of scarcity under capitalism. Low emphasis on science producing little return for medicine. If we had the ability to artificially grow replica organs in a laboratory from the patients DNA, i think that would keep everyone happy, religious batshit types included.

This procedure would also benefit amputees, as 'fresh limbs' could also be grown.

[southernmissfan]

it will never happen, the jehovah's witnesses would kick off.

To me though i regard organ scarcity as symptomatic of any other form of scarcity under capitalism. Low emphasis on science producing little return for medicine. If we had the ability to artificially grow replica organs in a laboratory from the patients DNA, i think that would keep everyone happy, religious batshit types included.

This procedure would also benefit amputees, as 'fresh limbs' could also be grown.

Religious batshit types would oppose "growing limbs" as much, if not much more than forced or opt out organ donation.

Your point is right on though. In society as we now know it, people are not the priority. Profit is the priority. This is one of the reasons we have yet to eliminate or at least treat many horrible diseases. Corporations place copyrights on potential cures as well as research that could lead to potential cures, thus holding back the process of creating vaccines and drugs that could treat many of the world's worst diseases.

[LOLseph Stalin]

it will never happen, the jehovah's witnesses would kick off.

Just don't tell them their organs would be used. Besides, they can't stop it if they're dead. ;)

[Dr Mindbender]

Just don't tell them their organs would be used. Besides, they can't stop it if they're dead. ;)

No but their families and their brethren might.

[Invincible Summer]

it will never happen, the jehovah's witnesses would kick off.

Do they base part of their religion on Ancient Egyptian practices? :rolleyes:

[Dr Mindbender]

Do they base part of their religion on Ancient Egyptian practices? :rolleyes:

No, they believe that on the day of judgement, 140 000 of the saved souls will return to Earth to rejoin their Earthly bodies. Which is why they oppose things like organ donations or blood transplants, because we will 'need' these things after judgement day.

I have a GCSE in religious education so am quite knowledgeable about these things, before you ask.

By the way, i think with the exception of the heart, the ancient Egyptians removed every organ from their dead so i'm not sure i understand your analogy. They thought that the heart was the seat of the human soul and mind, not the brain.

[LOLseph Stalin]

No, they believe that on the day of judgement, 140 000 of the saved souls will return to Earth to rejoin their Earthly bodies. Which is why they oppose things like organ donations or blood transplants, because we will 'need' these things after judgement day.


Now that's quite ridiculous I have to say. I guess they're dying then since they don't want life saving blood or organ transplants.


By the way, i think with the exception of the heart, the ancient Egyptians removed every organ from their dead so i'm not sure i understand your analogy. They thought that the heart was the seat of the human soul and mind, not the brain.

I'm very interested in Ancient Egypt actually and I find the whole process of mummification quite fastinating. When I was younger I actually used to say that I wanted to be mummified after I died using the Ancient Egyptian methods. Thanks to Greek historians like Heroditus we know the process. Argh...now i'm slightly off-topic...

[Picky Bugger]

I have a GCSE in religious education so am quite knowledgeable about these things, before you ask.

lol Ulster don't you HAVE to get a GCSE in religious education? I know at my school we dhad to do at least a 1/2 GCSE for some daft reason.




By the way, i think with the exception of the heart, the ancient Egyptians removed every organ from their dead so i'm not sure i understand your analogy. They thought that the heart was the seat of the human soul and mind, not the brain.Something like that, they believed that after death your heart would be weighed against a feather to see if you had held a "good" life. If it was heavier you went to the underworld if not you went somewhere sunny maybe Malaga.

[piet11111]

and if the heart was heavier it was fed to the crocodile god sobek if i am not mistaken.

and now i wonder why i even remember that.

or why i am posting drunk on whiskey.


anyway i prefer the method of forcing people to scrap themselves of the donor list that way only those that actually object to being donors would have to take the effort of getting off the list.

[Black Sheep]

I support it.

Since i am an atheist, i generally despise millenia old beliefs about afterlives, and stupid pagan rituals of buring/burning the dead.

Our bodies are organized matter.When we die they are still that.We don't need them then, but there are others who do.

So i suggest we stop the paranoia and corpse-worship of the present, and use the dead to help the living.
Arguments against this which are based on morality are immoral themselves anyway.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I have a GCSE in religious education so am quite knowledgeable about these things, before you ask.


:laugh:

All I do in that class is steal the text books , copy from them at home so I remember them and spend the lessons playing tetris.

A*

[Dr Mindbender]

lol Ulster don't you HAVE to get a GCSE in religious education? I know at my school we dhad to do at least a 1/2 GCSE for some daft reason.
.

The way it worked in my school, the A and B stream classes got to choose between RE, English Literature and Additional Maths. I was only 'C stream' so i was forced to take RE even though i would have done English literature. For some reason, they thought English Lit and Add Maths were too brainy for us 'C dummies'.

Whats funny, I went on to get 5 gcses at C grade or above, so they had to let me do A levels. I went on to get the highest A level grade in English literature of my class!

:D

Sorry for going off topic...

[Dr Mindbender]

:laugh:

All I do in that class is steal the text books , copy from them at home so I remember them and spend the lessons playing tetris.

A*

I bet youre one of the ones that spent all his time drawing dicks on the illustrations in the textbooks.

We did that as well.

[Picky Bugger]

The way it worked in my school, the A and B stream classes got to choose between RE, English Literature and Additional Maths.

Odd choices there, RE was lumped in with the humanities section at my school. Oh well it really shouldn't be taught anyway but I feel this may hijack the thread so lets stop here.

[Sentinel]

organ donation ought to be opt out, but people who opt out should not be allowed to receive organ donations thats the only fair solutionThis. Not only would it be fair, but it'd also greatly decrease the amount of people opting out. This said, I wouldn't oppose a popular decision to simply use everybodys organs without having to ask for permission.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

This. Not only would it be fair, but it'd also greatly decrease the amount of people opting out. This said, I wouldn't oppose a popular decision to simply use everybodys organs without having to ask for permission.

I wouldn't necessarily oppose it either, but that entails a "value" distinction. Someone who believes, illogically, that their organs "matter in the future life" might object to forced donation.

We are protecting people from harm by utilizing property instead of wasting it. If we set that precedent, how to we qualify wasting property?

[Sentinel]

Someone who believes, illogically, that their organs "matter in the future life" might object to forced donation.

Well I would hope that in the future society we are discussing they would get appropriate psychiatric help, rather than approval of their delusions.. :lol:

But yeah, maybe there could be individual exceptions made for the rock hard superstitious, at least on an initial stage and if considered absolutely necessary. Much like Jehova's don't have to do military service in Finland, that kind of thing.

But in any case I'm sure that such people would be disappearing a minority at that point, especially as society (hopefully) would actively discourage superstition.

[Invincible Summer]

No, they believe that on the day of judgement, 140 000 of the saved souls will return to Earth to rejoin their Earthly bodies. Which is why they oppose things like organ donations or blood transplants, because we will 'need' these things after judgement day.

What I never understood about this "140,000" thing is that I'm sure this number has been reached already... and how do they know when to stop recruiting?


By the way, i think with the exception of the heart, the ancient Egyptians removed every organ from their dead so i'm not sure i understand your analogy. They thought that the heart was the seat of the human soul and mind, not the brain.

I thought I read somewhere that the ancient Egyptians believed the body had to be intact to reach the afterlife or something... perhaps not the organs but the body wasn't supposed to be missing arms

[Comrade Anarchist]

I believe that it should be mandatory but not just pushed on people. Educate people to the good it does and they will want to.