Organ donating

TPD

Does anybody else think that each person, when they die, should automatically have their organs put up for donation? Loads of lives would be saved.

Of course, there can be an opt-out during their lifetime. It seems to me that most people aren't donors simply because they can't be bothered becoming one, rather than any opposition to the practice. This way, you're a donor unless you can be bothered to get off the list.

Your opinions, AHers?

buckieburd

TPD wrote: »

Does anybody else think that each person, when they die, should automatically have their organs put up for donation? Loads of lives would be saved.

Of course, there can be an opt-out during their lifetime. It seems to me that most people aren't donors simply because they can't be bothered becoming one, rather than any opposition to the practice. This way, you're a donor unless you can be bothered to get off the list.

Your opinions, AHers?

I think it's a great idea, cant understand why anyone would object to it, who cares if yer missing a kidney when yer dead!!

Also I think everyone should be made to give blood.

Mind you I cant donate my Organs or give blood in Ireland in case I give ye all Mad Cow Disease....

AnonoBoy

TPD wrote: »

Does anybody else think that each person, when they die, should automatically have their organs put up for donation? Loads of lives would be saved.

Of course, there can be an opt-out during their lifetime. It seems to me that most people aren't donors simply because they can't be bothered becoming one, rather than any opposition to the practice. This way, you're a donor unless you can be bothered to get off the list.

Your opinions, AHers?

Now I like pickles but can you imagine getting the liver off one of them lads in the BGRH forum? :eek::eek::eek::eek:

No thanks.

Vain

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Now I like pickles but can you imagine getting the liver off one of them lads in the BGRH forum? :eek::eek::eek::eek:

No thanks.

So you would rather die?:rolleyes:

Kold

Only if I get to choose what they're donated too. Hungry Ethiopians munching my balls ftw.

Kiera

I'd say all my organs are pretty much fucked from the abuse i've given them over my 29 years.

Robbo

A taxi driver told me that illegal immigrant asylum seeker migrants are being flown in on Learjets to get their hands on our precious Irish organs and pick up a dole payment at the same time.

They get grants for 3 free livers, a Mercedes S-Class, a seat on the board of any Quango of their choice and a voucher for cosmetic surgery of their choice.

It sickens me so much that I've vomited over the keyboard 3 times writing this.

Havermeyer

I have an old Casio Tonebank if anyone needs one?!

Burial

No. I don't want to be forced to opt-in. Everyone who wants to let people harvest themselves when they die can do it by opting-in. I'm not letting people violate me when I die. I don't want me liver/kidney to goto a drunk because he's just going to abuse it. I want it to goto someone who deserves it. Besides if Ireland had an "opt-out" it'd mean alot more people would be "murdered" and alot more people would come here to get there liver/kidney/etc. It'd be better if the world did an opt-out, but noone will.

Overheal

Im a donor myself, but I dont think it should be automatically inclusive.

AARRRGH

I'm gonna donate my penis to yore ma.

/Obligatory

AnonoBoy

Vain wrote: »

So you would rather die?:rolleyes:

Too bad somebody didn't die and donate you their sense of humour.

hot2def

my blood is not good enough for them, I assume my organs are the same.

MagicMarker

I'm not 'officially' a donor, but i would be if i cared enough.

Makes sense though, instead of carrying a card around saying ''donor'' you should have to carry one saying ''fúck off'', if that is indeed the case.

thelordofcheese

Burial wrote: »

No. I don't want to be forced to opt-in. Everyone who wants to let people harvest themselves when they die can do it by opting-in. I'm not letting people violate me when I die. I don't want me liver/kidney to goto a drunk because he's just going to abuse it. I want it to goto someone who deserves it. Besides if Ireland had an "opt-out" it'd mean alot more people would be "murdered" and alot more people would come here to get there liver/kidney/etc. It'd be better if the world did an opt-out, but noone will.

It *should* be an opt out system as opposed to the current opt-in.

Also, organ donation doesn't work how you think it works.

xzanti

I keep filling in the cards and then loosing them :rolleyes:.. Is there a way of becoming an official donar online or something?

Overheal

MagicMarker wrote: »

I'm not 'officially' a donor, but i would be if i cared enough.

Makes sense though, instead of carrying a card around saying ''donor'' you should have to carry one saying ''fúck off'', if that is indeed the case.

On your drivers license application over here you just check a box stating whether you want to be a donor or not. if you do they put a little red Heart on your license.

Cookie_Monster

Is it not enough the you have to work for the majority of your life and pay over huge amounts of tax. Give, give, give

Leave me to death in (one) peace:D

Burial

@thelordofcheese: What if I lose the card and they take my organs when I die? Will there be a database of people who don't want to give their organs away, so the public can see it? How about if I wear a necklace/bracelet/card for the rest of my life saying I'm not an organ donor? No. I don't want to be forced to leave my organs to the state and they have no right to take them from me. For all those who want to opt-in, you opt-in. I don't want my organs taken from me, by "mistake" when I die..

Also, if Ireland was the only country where everyone had to opt-out, I guarantee you, they'll be more lenient in who they give organs to. Why wouldn't an alcoholic with failed kidneys be allowed some when they have a few lying around that a bunch of dead people won't mind he takes? I wasn't talking about the current affairs of how they give out organs.

thelordofcheese

Burial wrote: »

@thelordofcheese: What if I lose the card and they take my organs when I die? Will there be a database of people who don't want to give their organs away, so the public can see it? How about if I wear a necklace/bracelet/card for the rest of my life saying I'm not an organ donor? No. I don't want to be forced to leave my organs to the state and they have no right to take them from me. For all those who want to opt-in, you opt-in. I don't want my organs taken from me, by "mistake" when I die..

Also, if Ireland was the only country where everyone had to opt-out, I guarantee you, they'll be more lenient in who they give organs to. Why wouldn't an alcoholic with failed kidneys be allowed some when they have a few lying around that a bunch of dead people won't mind he takes? I wasn't talking about the current affairs of how they give out organs.

your slippery-slope argument is silly, it does not take into account things like suitability of the match between you an a given person as well as the suitability of you as a doner.
In a Opt-out system there would potentially be more organs availbale for those that need it, not a massive surplus of kidneys so anyone can get a replacement at a drop of a hat.
Stop talking nonsense, it pains me.

Also, you're dead, who gives two shits what happens to that slowly decaying lump of meat we used to call you? fuckkit, take 'em all, i won't need it where i'm going (which is into the ground to rot)

Cookie_Monster

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Also, you're dead, who gives two shits what happens to that slowly decaying lump of meat we used to call you? fuckkit, take 'em all, i won't need it where i'm going (which is into the ground to rot)

why do you assume all people will be buried?

I for one want to be fed to the penguins in Dublin zoo:D

Pompey Magnus

Burial wrote: »

I don't want my organs taken from me, by "mistake" when I die..

Out of interest, why not? You won't be needing them and they could help save a life, true it might go to an alcoholic who would waste them but then it might also go to a genuine person who could live a productive life.

HammerHeadGym

I came up with a solution for this years ago. People should have 2 options;

1) I am an organ donor. When I die, the medical profession can help themselves to whatever bits of me they need. If I have an accident, I am entitled to the bank of organs that are currently in storage.

2) I am not a donor. No one is allowed to take anything from my body, before or after I die. Due to my lack of contribution to the scheme, I am not entitled to replacement organs for any reason.

Same should go for blood. Why on earth people can't spare an hour, every 3 months is nothing short of self- centered indifference.

If that was the law, I imagine there'd be plenty of everything to go round by the new year.

Cookie_Monster

Charco wrote: »

Out of interest, why not? You won't be needing them and they could help save a life, true it might go to an alcoholic who would waste them but then it might also go to a genuine person who could live a productive life.

Cus dere mine, MINE, mine i say!
You here that? MINE

:D

Cookie_Monster

HammerHeadGym wrote: »

I came up with a solution for this years ago. People should have 2 options;

1) I am an organ donor. When I die, the medical profession can help themselves to whatever bits of me they need. If I have an accident, I am entitled to the bank of organs that are currently in storage.

2) I am not a donor. No one is allowed to take anything from my body, before or after I die. Due to my lack of contribution to the scheme, I am not entitled to replacement organs for any reason.

Same should go for blood. Why on earth people can't spare an hour, every 3 months is nothing short of self- centered indifference.

If that was the law, I imagine there'd be plenty of everything to go round by the new year.

Thats a pretty good idea actually. I think it would work.

However what about those people that, for whatever reason, were unsuitable to donate? Rare genetic conditions, given dodgy blood products by the health service etc?

Trojan911

TPD wrote: »

Does anybody else think that each person, when they die, should automatically have their organs put up for donation? Your opinions, AHers?

No, not for that idea. If people want to donate then that's their choice. My choice is not to donate organs.

I used to donate blood when I lived in London, but when I came back here they refused it until I had been in the country for X amount of years, so now I don't bother anymore.

EL_Loco

prize bonds type scheme:

you sign up as an organ donor (into a system yet to exist ), they take say 5,000 off the lotto grand prize. Every week there's a donor's prize. If you win and accept the money you're allowing your organs to be harvested when you die. On your death the system can be checked and see if you're registered, or if you've ever accepted the donor's prize.

If you do want to donate you can mark your drivers license on the back, there's 2 tick boxes.
Let your family, next of kin know, these are the people who are asked if the hospital can't determine if you want to donate or not. This goes for people who don't want to donate also. Let your family know.
Carry a donor card. How often are you close to a chemist? usually they're up at the counter. fill it in, stick it in your wallet and that's it.

Opting in is quite easy. Please do it. Been going 6 years on a borrowed kidney I hope everyone who needs a transplant can get the luck I did, but of course it takes donors to make it happen.

Overheal

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Thats a pretty good idea actually. I think it would work.

However what about those people that, for whatever reason, were unsuitable to donate? Rare genetic conditions, given dodgy blood products by the health service etc?

Or, were too young to declare themselves donors and suddenly found themselves in need of a new kidney.

Burial

@HammerHeadGym: My mother cannot donate blood. What would happen her? And to do that your forcing people to do things they don't want to do. I don't want to give my blood away, that doesn't mean I should die for not wanting to do it.

@Charco: I don't want to give my organs away. I don't have to provide a reason but I don't want to opt-in as is because I prefer to die with my organs. I want to be intact. I want to be me when I die. I don't want to be a hollow.

@thelordofcheese:

wrote:

your slippery-slope argument is silly, it does not take into account things like suitability of the match between you an a given person as well as the suitability of you as a doner.

wtf? That had nothing to do with my arguements..

wrote:

In a Opt-out system there would potentially be more organs availbale for those that need it, not a massive surplus of kidneys so anyone can get a replacement at a drop of a hat.
Stop talking nonsense, it pains me.

Actually, there would need to be a surplus of kidneys to guarantee everyone who needed a kidney would get one. you can never say ok, this year we'll need 4000 kidneys to be ok. You can guess. You'll always have people coming in and you WILL have a surplus of whatever. As you said if you had a perfect 1:1 ratio then people who reject kidneys and whatnot would need another, thereby being under the 1:1 ratio. I'm not the one talking nonsense.

wrote:

Also, you're dead, who gives two ****s what happens to that slowly decaying lump of meat we used to call you? ****kit, take 'em all, i won't need it where i'm going (which is into the ground to rot)

I do. I care what happens to me. I presume because you don't care what happens to you when you die, I can have all your possessions? Or do you care about who they go to? Hypocrite.

Silenceisbliss

if theydele was the recipient....id done her my organ...

not like im gonna get it back anyway....id prob get it bitten off....

HAHA....I MAKE JOKE!

Burial

In Soviet Russia, joke makes YOU!!!!

Cookie_Monster

Silenceisbliss wrote: »

if theydele was the recipient....id done her my organ...

not like im gonna get it back anyway....id prob get it bitten off....

HAHA....I MAKE JOKE!

Good english spoke two

Overheal

Silenceisbliss wrote: »

if theydele was the recipient....id done her my organ...

not like im gonna get it back anyway....id prob get it bitten off....

HAHA....I MAKE JOKE!

lol. Thaed's gonna make you asexual. highlarious.

Silenceisbliss

Burial wrote: »

In Soviet Russia, joke makes YOU!!!!

im not your brother....

Burial

Seriously does anyone want to have an actual debate on this?

EL_Loco

well Burial, so far, and for most other posts I imagine you're going to reply with "it's my choice, I can do what I like with my organs"

and you're 100% correct, of course you can. Do I want to see you say that more than once? No thanks.

I agree with you, it is your choice, and it's a choice everyone can make. The point I'd like to make, and I've said it already a page back, is that opting in is easy. If you find it such a good idea, as I do, then it shouldn't be too big an ordeal to get yourself a card, mark your license or tell your next of kin of your wishes.

If you don't that's fine too, we're all individuals who make individual choices.

thelordofcheese

Burial wrote: »

wtf? That had nothing to do with my arguements..

actually, it does, you just don't realise it.

Burial wrote: »

Actually, there would need to be a surplus of kidneys to guarantee everyone who needed a kidney would get one. you can never say ok, this year we'll need 4000 kidneys to be ok. You can guess. You'll always have people coming in and you WILL have a surplus of whatever. As you said if you had a perfect 1:1 ratio then people who reject kidneys and whatnot would need another, thereby being under the 1:1 ratio. I'm not the one talking nonsense.

Yes, you blatently are, not all organs are suitable for transplanting, in much the same way not all blood is suitable for transfusion. Your scenario where by making it an opt out system means that there would be a surplus isn't likely. You are aware of how this all works, if not i'd suggest doing a little bit of research and coming back to us then.

What a opt-out system means is that those at the top of the transfer list have a better chance of recieving an organ sooner, not that we're up to our tits in livers, lungs and hearts.

Burial wrote: »

I do. I care what happens to me. I presume because you don't care what happens to you when you die, I can have all your possessions? Or do you care about who they go to? Hypocrite.

You can't care, YOU'RE DEAD, stop pretending it matters when it can't.
And seeing as i have no will then it pretty likely that i don't really care who gets my meager possesions after i shuffle off this mortal coil.

Also, it's customary to wait until someone has made a hypocritical statement before labeling them as such. Y'know, cause THEN effect, not the other way around.

raido9

Burial wrote: »

@HammerHeadGym: My mother cannot donate blood. What would happen her? And to do that your forcing people to do things they don't want to do. I don't want to give my blood away, that doesn't mean I should die for not wanting to do it.

We'll start off with an easy one so.

Ok your Mother can't donate blood, thats fair enough, but by the sounds of it you can.

Why don't you want to donate blood, is it that you can't be bothered or do you have a legitimate reason?

You expect the right to take donated blood, but not to give it?

Please explain?

Burial

thelordofcheese wrote: »

actually, it does, you just don't realise it.

Please show me. I'd like to see where I'm talking non-sense.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Yes, you blatently are, not all organs are suitable for transplanting, in much the same way not all blood is suitable for transfusion.

Correct.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Your scenario where by making it an opt out system means that there would be a surplus isn't likely. You are aware of how this all works, if not i'd suggest doing a little bit of research and coming back to us then.

As to my understanding, it's a list and those on top get organs quicker then those on the bottom. This is the basic principle? (Excluding if they're a match to blood type and eligibility) At the moment if this was brought in, we wouldn't have a surplus,[We don't now, which is why we have the list] but over the years we would have a surplus. (Ignoring other factors including foreigners coming here solely for transplants) If we made it compulsory to donate blood do you think we'd still have a defeict in blood or a surplus of blood?

I'm curious? Do you think, I think Ireland has some Organ mountian that we're hording, like the equivelent butter mountains?

If we started again. Over a period of a year, do you imagine there'd be more people who'd need organs to live or people giving organs away? Keep in mind, not everyone who dies can give organs away, not everyone who is sick needs one either, and people who do need organs, not all of them need kidneys, but other organs.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

What a opt-out system means is that those at the top of the transfer list have a better chance of recieving an organ sooner, not that we're up to our tits in livers, lungs and hearts.

Well done for stating the obvious.... In an opt-in system are you suggesting we will be in the same position from the 90% population being part of the donation process? (Taking how many people opt-in, as the amount of people who opt-out, I don't know the figure but I'm guessing 10% if this is wrong please do correct me)

thelordofcheese wrote: »

You can't care, YOU'RE DEAD, stop pretending it matters when it can't.
And seeing as i have no will then it pretty likely that i don't really care who gets my meager possesions after i shuffle off this mortal coil.

Yes I can care. In fact I do care. Which is why I'm against it. Which is why there'll be an opt-out option for people in your plan. You may say you don't care who/where/what your possesions do when your dead, but I highly doubt you don't care. Anyway, my question was doubled-edged. Your a hypocrite either way. By saying you do care where your possessions go, you'd obviously be a hypocrite. Saying you don't care where/what happens to you/your possesions, would mean you wouldn't mind me owning you when you die. If you even slightly object to that statement, you care about what happens to you when you die. Thus the hardest to prove of you being a hypocrite, is you leaving me a will with all your posessions, however when you write me a will stating you'd leave me all your assets, [Because you don't care what happens to you] you'd be a hyopcrite for allowing me to be the sole receipient of your possesions. By taking the time to make a will you've proven you've cared where your assets go when you die, and thus care what happens to you when you die. You are a hypocrite.

Phew. Confused myself in that one.

Write a will = hyocrite. (Taking time to decide who gets your assets)
Don't write a will to me = hyopcrite. (Caring I don't receive your assets)

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Also, it's customary to wait until someone has made a hypocritical statement before labeling them as such. Y'know, cause THEN effect, not the other way around.

As I've just said above, no matter what you replied, you'd be a hypocrite.

El Loco wrote:

well Burial, so far, and for most other posts I imagine you're going to reply with "it's my choice, I can do what I like with my organs"

For the most part, yes. However, I do wish to see if others dis/agree and why their relative stance on the matter is. I also would like to know if it's actually legal to do. (I.e. could the state actually do it)

El Loco wrote:

and you're 100% correct, of course you can. Do I want to see you say that more than once? No thanks.

I agree with you, it is your choice, and it's a choice everyone can make. The point I'd like to make, and I've said it already a page back, is that opting in is easy. If you find it such a good idea, as I do, then it shouldn't be too big an ordeal to get yourself a card, mark your license or tell your next of kin of your wishes.

If you don't that's fine too, we're all individuals who make individual choices.

I agree 100% with your opinion. It is easy to opt-in, so why make everyone opt-in? It seems like a sneaky way to get people to donate against their will.

Gone Drinking

They can have my organs when i die.. but I'll be buried with my keyboard!

Burial

raido9 wrote: »

We'll start off with an easy one so.

Ok your Mother can't donate blood, thats fair enough, but by the sounds of it you can.

I most certainly can.

raido9 wrote: »

Why don't you want to donate blood, is it that you can't be bothered or do you have a legitimate reason?

Mostly, lack of knowing where to go with me not bothering. Yes, I can check there website, but donating blood isn't one of my highlights of the week, to check when they roll into my town.

raido9 wrote: »

You expect the right to take donated blood, but not to give it?

Please explain?

I have yet to need blood from anyone, but someday I will need it. I can contribute to society in more and different ways. I pay taxes that fund the health system. How about others who arrive who never gave blood or taxes? Foreigners and tourists? How about baby infants who can't give blood? Would they be entitled to it? how about my son/daughter would they be entitled to it? Explain to me why these people would have more of a right then I would? Especially since I pay taxes and such yet others do not? How about if I help the homeless in Ireland and never gave blood? If everyone gave blood would one bag be enough to fufill my requirements? What if I never got round to giving blood and I need it? Would I be entitled to it? What happens if I regularly give blood but they confuse my name with someone else? Is that fair? What if I give blood in America? Would I be able to get blood here? Do you only get the amount you give? If I goto a foreign country and get paid to give blood to that waive my blood entitlements here? Are criminals allowed get blood?

Now, I have hit you with a string of questions that you have to answer in order to say what I'm doing should warrent me not receiving donated blood. I'll answer your question as to why I deserve donated blood. I give taxes to the governement whose responsibilities lies with it's citizens where it cannot discriminate. You giving blood, do not own the blood afterwards. It is the states property. Therefore I'm entitled to it, however so is everyone else. So I'll have to wait my turn along with everyone else. I live a life free from crime and I don't get submitted to A & E to get my stomach pumped every other weekend because I drink in moderation. I try to buy local and I've represented my county/province/country. I've helped Irish citizens when they've needed it and I've donated to charity. What I'm saying is, I'm not a criminal, I'm a citizen of this country, I help others, and I don't waste our country resources.

Burial

@Gone_Drinking: No! I'll be buried with my whole computer!

raido9

Burial wrote: »

I most certainly can.



Mostly, lack of knowing where to go with me not bothering. Yes, I can check there website, but donating blood isn't one of my highlights of the week, to check when they roll into my town.



I have yet to need blood from anyone, but someday I will need it. I can contribute to society in more and different ways. I pay taxes that fund the health system. How about others who arrive who never gave blood or taxes? Foreigners and tourists? How about baby infants who can't give blood? Would they be entitled to it? how about my son/daughter would they be entitled to it? Explain to me why these people would have more of a right then I would? Especially since I pay taxes and such yet others do not? How about if I help the homeless in Ireland and never gave blood? If everyone gave blood would one bag be enough to fufill my requirements? What if I never got round to giving blood and I need it? Would I be entitled to it? What happens if I regularly give blood but they confuse my name with someone else? Is that fair? What if I give blood in America? Would I be able to get blood here? Do you only get the amount you give? If I goto a foreign country and get paid to give blood to that waive my blood entitlements here? Are criminals allowed get blood?

Now, I have hit you with a string of questions that you have to answer in order to say what I'm doing should warrent me not receiving donated blood. I'll answer your question as to why I deserve donated blood. I give taxes to the governement whose responsibilities lies with it's citizens where it cannot discriminate. You giving blood, do not own the blood afterwards. It is the states property. Therefore I'm entitled to it, however so is everyone else. So I'll have to wait my turn along with everyone else. I live a life free from crime and I don't get submitted to A & E to get my stomach pumped every other weekend because I drink in moderation. I try to buy local and I've represented my county/province/country. I've helped Irish citizens when they've needed it and I've donated to charity. What I'm saying is, I'm not a criminal, I'm a citizen of this country, I help others, and I don't waste our country resources.

I wasn't defending the proposal that you should have to give blood to get blood. Obviously that will never work.

I was highlighting your selfish attitude towards blood donations. Too lazy to take one hour out of your day four times a year.

But still expect to take others blood, because you pay taxes.


And you going around calling people hypocrites. :rolleyes:

Dave!

Burial wrote: »

@Charco: I don't want to give my organs away. I don't have to provide a reason but I don't want to opt-in as is because I prefer to die with my organs. I want to be intact. I want to be me when I die. I don't want to be a hollow.

How pathetic. IMO you deserve f*ck all in the event that you wind up in need of an organ donation. Unfortunately the donor does not get to decide who gets their organs, so you could very well end up with my heart pumping inside you :rolleyes: Alas...

thelordofcheese

Burial wrote: »

As to my understanding, it's a list and those on top get organs quicker then those on the bottom. This is the basic principle? (Excluding if they're a match to blood type and eligibility) At the moment if this was brought in, we wouldn't have a surplus,[We don't now, which is why we have the list] but over the years we would have a surplus. (Ignoring other factors including foreigners coming here solely for transplants) If we made it compulsory to donate blood do you think we'd still have a defeict in blood or a surplus of blood?

erm, you realise that organs don't keep, right? they have a shelf-life.
Also, you do realise that even with an opt-out system we'd never meet demand? There would still be more people than doners, but the gap would be closed.
Which is the point, less people die for the want of an organ under the opt-out than the opt-in system. Hell, i think spain has the highest level of organ donation in the world and they're nowhere near meeting demand.

Burial wrote: »

Yes I can care. In fact I do care. Which is why I'm against it. Which is why there'll be an opt-out option for people in your plan. You may say you don't care who/where/what your possesions do when your dead, but I highly doubt you don't care. Anyway, my question was doubled-edged. Your a hypocrite either way. By saying you do care where your possessions go, you'd obviously be a hypocrite. Saying you don't care where/what happens to you/your possesions, would mean you wouldn't mind me owning you when you die. If you even slightly object to that statement, you care about what happens to you when you die. Thus the hardest to prove of you being a hypocrite, is you leaving me a will with all your posessions, however when you write me a will stating you'd leave me all your assets, [Because you don't care what happens to you] you'd be a hyopcrite for allowing me to be the sole receipient of your possesions. By taking the time to make a will you've proven you've cared where your assets go when you die, and thus care what happens to you when you die. You are a hypocrite.

Phew. Confused myself in that one.

Write a will = hyocrite. (Taking time to decide who gets your assets)
Don't write a will to me = hyopcrite. (Caring I don't receive your assets)

That's just pathetic. Do you honestly think you're convoluted word soup means anything?
You've firstly made the very stupid mistake of trying to assert that there is similar in worth between meaningless things and organs.
ProTip: you won't die without a working tv, but you will without a working heart.

Everything after that is, rubbish because it's built on that same stupid initial premise.
And of course, you've left the giant hole in your terrible and childish 'theory' being you assume i have to take some action with regards to my possesions after i die. I don't *have* to do anything. Of course that's rendered moot because of the crushing banality of your underlying assumtion that things can equate to organs.

Burial wrote: »

As I've just said above, no matter what you replied, you'd be a hypocrite.

try harder, be better.
Or rather don't try at all, you're terrible at it.

AckwelFoley

I was thinking of donating my penis to CONCERN when i die.

They could send it to Swaziland and feed their nation for a whole week off it.

genericgoon

I don't mind the opt-out system as long as everyone gets sent out a easily filled out form letter when they are 18 asking them whether they wish to opt out or not.(non-answer would be assumed to be a choice to stay in) I think the choice should be at least put formally in front of everyone at least once in their lives. Also, would remove the 'that their relative didn't really want to donate but never got round to opting out' excuse.

Burial

Dave! wrote: »

How pathetic. IMO you deserve f*ck all in the event that you wind up in need of an organ donation. Unfortunately the donor does not get to decide who gets their organs, so you could very well end up with my heart pumping inside you :rolleyes: Alas...

Do all those who don't opt-in deserve organs too, or is it only because I answered the question on this forum?? And if I don't deserve to get anything in an accident than why am I paying taxes for the health service? Does that not entitle me to medical care? Answer my post to raido9 above if you truely feel I'm not deserving but others are. Also should smokers be allowed lungs for damaging theirs?

raido9 wrote:

I wasn't defending the proposal that you should have to give blood to get blood. Obviously that will never work.

I was highlighting your selfish attitude towards blood donations. Too lazy to take one hour out of your day four times a year.

But still expect to take others blood, because you pay taxes.


And you going around calling people hypocrites.

I'm not being a hypocrite at all. At most I'm being lazy and selfish, but even that is odd considering I pay taxes for the upkeep of hospitals, roads, etc. I'm entitled to get blood the same as everyone else. Donating more or less of it doesn't matter. Which is why your not defending the proposal "to give blood is to get blood".

thelordofcheese wrote:

erm, you realise that organs don't keep, right? they have a shelf-life.

According to you it won't matter we'll never meet demand so it won't matter that they won't keep. I was argueing that on an opt-out scheme, if they had a kidney lying around for noone to use except for mr.Alco/drugie, you can be sure they'd get it, rather then it goto waste. Yes, that scenario might never happen, but the possibility is there. Also, having Kidneys, etc and not using them is a stock pile of wasted organs.

thelordofcheese wrote:

Also, you do realise that even with an opt-out system we'd never meet demand? There would still be more people than doners, but the gap would be closed.

I don't agree. Unless you can make cold, hard facts appear, you can't make me accept what you say as the truth. I'm not being petty or arrogant or what have you, I just feel by supply and demand, that demand would stay the same but supply would increase. Thus cutting waiting times and that as is now, how many are being added to the list? Ie is the waiting list steadily increasing? I'm not saying it'd solve the problem 100%, but I'm saying you can't rule out that it won't solve it because you don't think it will.

thelordofcheese wrote:

Which is the point, less people die for the want of an organ under the opt-out than the opt-in system. Hell, i think spain has the highest level of organ donation in the world and they're nowhere near meeting demand.

But does Spain have an opt-out system? I don't know, please tell me if they do. If they don't your arguement is invalid as it's just taking a similar system as the Irish one. I agree more lives would be saved, but I don't agree to make everyone opt-in. People can opt-in themselves at the moment, and as a poster said it's very easy to do! I just feel that an opt-out system is getting more organs sneakily and unfair. It's not letting the person decide.

thelordofcheese wrote:

wrote:

Originally Posted by Burial
Yes I can care. In fact I do care. Which is why I'm against it. Which is why there'll be an opt-out option for people in your plan. You may say you don't care who/where/what your possesions do when your dead, but I highly doubt you don't care. Anyway, my question was doubled-edged. Your a hypocrite either way. By saying you do care where your possessions go, you'd obviously be a hypocrite. Saying you don't care where/what happens to you/your possesions, would mean you wouldn't mind me owning you when you die. If you even slightly object to that statement, you care about what happens to you when you die. Thus the hardest to prove of you being a hypocrite, is you leaving me a will with all your posessions, however when you write me a will stating you'd leave me all your assets, [Because you don't care what happens to you] you'd be a hyopcrite for allowing me to be the sole receipient of your possesions. By taking the time to make a will you've proven you've cared where your assets go when you die, and thus care what happens to you when you die. You are a hypocrite.

Phew. Confused myself in that one.

Write a will = hyocrite. (Taking time to decide who gets your assets)
Don't write a will to me = hyopcrite. (Caring I don't receive your assets)

That's just pathetic. Do you honestly think you're convoluted word soup means anything?
You've firstly made the very stupid mistake of trying to assert that there is similar in worth between meaningless things and organs.
ProTip: you won't die without a working tv, but you will without a working heart.

I'm aware you won't die if you didn't have a working tv, which wasn't my point, but you care what happens to your stuff when you die, because others will use it. Why can't the same by applied to my organs? I'm not giving them to the State. I'm not equating organs = tv. I'm saying it's still yours. It doesn't become anyones elses without my say. I care what happens to my stuff (Organs included) when I die. You care of your possessions but not your organs. I find that a bit off to the rest of your arguements, as I would've imagined Organs being of a higher value than your tv. (Which I proved, in the above post) *NOTE* Do you care what happens to people who murder you when you die? I realise I won't be able to do that, but facing death I'd like to know what'll happen after I die.

thelordofcheese wrote:

Everything after that is, rubbish because it's built on that same stupid initial premise.

Now that you see my arguement isn't Organ = tv, please post a reply on my original post. Also, don't rubbish all my arguements, if one of my points are invalid, the other posts/points may still be valid.

thelordofcheese wrote:

And of course, you've left the giant hole in your terrible and childish 'theory' being you assume i have to take some action with regards to my possesions after i die. I don't *have* to do anything. Of course that's rendered moot because of the crushing banality of your underlying assumtion that things can equate to organs.

Once again, I'd like to stress that, that wasn't the point I was trying to get across. I was not saying tv= Organs. I was saying I care what happens to them when I die, just as anyone cares what happens to their stuff when they die. You are correct in that you don't have to do anything. I'm merely stating for someone who doesn't care what happens to them when they die, that it's strange to not allow me to be sole receipiant of your possessions. Obviously over-the-top arguement, but I had thought this proved my point. I care what happens to me and my possesions when I die, as do most people. I'm sorry I don't conform to your point of view.

thelordofcheese wrote:

wrote:

Originally Posted by Burial
As I've just said above, no matter what you replied, you'd be a hypocrite.)

try harder, be better.
Or rather don't try at all, you're terrible at it.

You haven't contributed much either excpet to critise me personally. I've poked the holes in your arguements and stated why there shouldn't be an opt-out system.

*P.S.*

Does America pay for blood? If so, how much are they in need of blood?

*P.P.S.* Boards timed out, so half my post was lost. I think this was the general jist...

Burial

genericgoon wrote: »

I don't mind the opt-out system as long as everyone gets sent out a easily filled out form letter when they are 18 asking them whether they wish to opt out or not.(non-answer would be assumed to be a choice to stay in) I think the choice should be at least put formally in front of everyone at least once in their lives. Also, would remove the 'that their relative didn't really want to donate but never got round to opting out' excuse.

Why would no-replies be automatically opted in? Why can't it be that they don't want to be opted-in, which is why they aren't replying? Many people who can't read/write and who wouldn't reply would be automatically in. I like the idea of sending a letter to your home when your 18, but have in opt-in and not opt-out. The same for drivers licence. It should have something like that also.

Ann22

I donated blood once at 7.00pm and couldn't get up off the sofa bed thing 'til 9.00pm-I was mad weak! Thought I'd have to get it back. Found out I've a weird antibody too so I've to carry a card in case i ever need a transfusion. It may be worth donating organs if you've a fear of being buried alive.....but then what happens at judgement day? Us practising Catholics are supposed to believe our bodies join our souls. :eek:

Kablamo!

Burial wrote: »

According to you it won't matter we'll never meet demand so it won't matter that they won't keep. I was argueing that on an opt-out scheme, if they had a kidney lying around for noone to use except for mr.Alco/drugie, you can be sure they'd get it, rather then it goto waste. Yes, that scenario might never happen, but the possibility is there. Also, having Kidneys, etc and not using them is a stock pile of wasted organs.

My mother is an alcoholic. Admittedly, it's not anybody's fault but her own, but she has spent time in hospitals etc. trying to cure herself. It's not a simple choice to become addicted to drugs and drink and quitting them isn't just like turning off a tap. In the event her liver fails, does she not deserve a second chance? Who are you to play God?
As you so nicely put it 'mr. Alco.drugie' may have a loving family and friends.
Get down off your moral high horse and take your head out of your ass.
Why not your organs when you die? You could be giving someone a chance to spend more time on this world with the people who care about them. Maybe they might be a bit unsavoury for your taste but they are still people who matter. On the flip side, who knows? Maybe your heart could go to the pope!