Legislation to make organ donations automatic

van_beano

lan wrote: »

Underhanded? A law is the only mechanism the state have to enforce this

Why would it need to be enforced? There should be more than enough willing organ donors in this state but, for whatever reason, they either haven't registered or not enough donors are dying with reusable organs. Why enact legislation that will force, and alienate, non-organ donors to come out of the shadows to state they are wish to opt-out. Other than saving life's as you stated previous in a similar query by me. As I previously commented, there should be far more emphasis put on the opt-in system so no one is alienated.

So would you prefer a mandatory donation system with no opportunity to opt out? That's how it works for most of our other laws after all...

I wouldn't be surprised if a mandatory donation system was implemented in this State in the future if a large cohort of citizens decide to opt-out of this proposed system!

ohnonotgmail

van_beano wrote: »

Why would it need to be enforced? There should be more than enough willing organ donors in this state but, for whatever reason, they either haven't registered or not enough donors are dying with reusable organs. Why enact legislation that will force, and alienate, non-organ donors to come out of the shadows to state they are wish to opt-out. Other than saving life's as you stated previous in a similar query by me. As I previously commented, there should be far more emphasis put on the opt-in system so no one is alienated.



I wouldn't be surprised if a mandatory donation system was implemented in this State in the future if a large cohort of citizens decide to opt-out of this proposed system!

Pissing off a small number of people who cant be arsed to opt out is a price worth paying if the extra organs available save peoples lives.

lan

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

You see? Here comes the abuse.

Which is why there is no authentic choice on offer in this proposal.

If you don't want to donate, that's your choice and I respect that.

My comment wasn't about that, it was about someone not wanting to change the legislation because then someone "may have to think about and may wish to go to the hassle of having to opt-out".

If you want to opt out, that's your choice and perfectly acceptable. You are covered within the new legislation. That's not the issue though, it's everyone else who hasn't specified a preference. The previous poster didn't even want these people to have to contemplate the concept of organ donation, and therefore the law shouldn't be changed, which I think is rubbish.

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Agree to give up your organs or risk being socially shunned - sounds like an old fashioned threat to me.

You're the only one saying that, no one else has mentioned shunning anyone. Keep your organs if you want to, it's your choice.

van_beano

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Pissing off a small number of people who cant be arsed to opt out is a price worth paying if the extra organs available save peoples lives.

The laziness of a large number of people who cant be arsed to opt in is the price worth paying to create a persons fear of being shunned and alienated of opting out

Mrs Shuttleworth

van_beano wrote: »

Why would it need to be enforced? There should be more than enough willing organ donors in this state but, for whatever reason, they either haven't registered or not enough donors are dying with reusable organs. Why enact legislation that will force, and alienate, non-organ donors to come out of the shadows to state they are wish to opt-out. Other than saving life's as you stated previous in a similar query by me. As I previously commented, there should be far more emphasis put on the opt-in system so no one is alienated.



I wouldn't be surprised if a mandatory donation system was implemented in this State in the future if a large cohort of citizens decide to opt-out of this proposed system!

The proposal is macabre and unfair and unworkable. Already we've seen in the last few posts the sly insults creeping in towards those concerned about its application.

How would a hospital view you if you were admitted for care and then ascertained as having opted out? Treated with the same scorn and ostracism as a girl knocked up in rural Ireland in the 1950s?

Mrs Shuttleworth

lan wrote: »

If you don't want to donate, that's your choice and I respect that.

My comment wasn't about that, it was about someone not wanting to change the legislation because then someone "may have to think about and may wish to go to the hassle of having to opt-out".

If you want to opt out, that's your choice and perfectly acceptable. You are covered within the new legislation. That's not the issue though, it's everyone else who hasn't specified a preference. The previous poster didn't even want these people to have to contemplate the concept of organ donation, and therefore the law shouldn't be changed, which I think is rubbish.



You're the only one saying that, no one else has mentioned shunning anyone. Keep your organs if you want to, it's your choice.

You used the term "social hermits" to describe those who do not wish to acquiesce with this proposal.

ohnonotgmail

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

The proposal is macabre and unfair and unworkable. Already we've seen in the last few posts the sly insults creeping in towards those concerned about its application.

How would a hospital view you if you were admitted for care and then ascertained as having opted out? Treated with the same scorn and ostracism as a girl knocked up in rural Ireland in the 1950s?

why would the hospital even check that if you were alive? the paranoia around this is incredible.

kowloon

Nina Ashy Couch wrote: »

I wont be donating any of my organs .


Medication I'm on stops me being of value in this regard.

I was disappointed to discover the same, but it was only after I had a heal;th condition that precluded me from it that I gave any thought to being an organ donor. I expect that is the case for most people, so an opt-out system would be ideal.

ohnonotgmail

van_beano wrote: »

The laziness of a large number of people who cant be arsed to opt in is the price worth paying to create a persons fear of being shunned and alienated of opting out

the only person who has mentioned being shunned is you. why would anybody shunned for joining the opt out list? How would anybody apart from a hospital even know you were on such a list?

lan

van_beano wrote: »

Why enact legislation that will force, and alienate, non-organ donors to come out of the shadows to state they are wish to opt-out. Other than saving life's as you stated previous in a similar query by me.

I don't have another reason. I really really don't think I need one.

I also don't see how this could alienate someone either.

van_beano wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised if a mandatory donation system was implemented in this State in the future if a large cohort of citizens decide to opt-out of this proposed system!

Really? Caused I'd be genuinely shocked and appalled.

Besides, it'd never happen. Politicians like to get re-elected.

van_beano

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the only person who has mentioned being shunned is you. why would anybody shunned for joining the opt out list? How would anybody apart from a hospital even know you were on such a list?

Nope, Mrs Shuttleworth used the word shun as well.

Regardless of whoever knows if you've opted out is irrelevant, it's the knowledge that someone who is wishing to opt-out knows that society in general may think of less of them for opting out. Some people think that sort of thing to heart and may inflict themselves with a whole host of unnecessary guilt.

ohnonotgmail

van_beano wrote: »

Nope, Mrs Shuttleworth used the word shun as well.

Regardless of whoever knows if you've opted out is irrelevant, it's the knowledge that someone who is wishing to opt-out knows that society in general may think of less of them for opting out. Some people think that sort of thing to heart and may inflict themselves with a whole host of unnecessary guilt.

But how would anybody know you were on such a list unless you told them?

Mrs Shuttleworth

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

why would the hospital even check that if you were alive? the paranoia around this is incredible.

Dear God the lack of knowledge around this topic is terrifying.

Every patient admitted once this legislation is passed will be assessed de facto and checked if they have opted out. That will form routine administrative practice.

You are also clinically alive when organs are removed. You may well be conscious and compis mentis upon your first admission. A terminal cancer patient on a ward will be asked their wishes. If they feel coerced into not opting out then there is a risk their care could be compromised to hasten their death if their organs are deemed of value.

That is the potential here which concerns many of us.

lan

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

You used the term "social hermits" to describe those who do not wish to acquiesce with this proposal.

No I didn't, I used the term to describe the people that van_beano is arguing for:

van_beano wrote:

I'd be of the view that having an automatic opt-in for anything (not just organ donations) is wrong as it takes away the persons option of not having to have a choice or engaging in society (there are people out there like that).

van_beano wrote:

Engaging with laws and the rules of society goes without saying, I'm not talking about the Freemen crowd here. I am describing individuals that pay their bills, taxes and are fully compliant with all aspects of applicable laws and that's it, they do not wish to engage in extra-curricular options such as maybe voting in elections or getting involved in Residents Associations, that sort of thing

Gadgetman496

If the current Opt-in is not working sufficiently, why would that be, do you think?

ohnonotgmail

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Dear God the lack of knowledge around this topic is terrifying.

Every patient admitted once this legislation is passed will be assessed de facto and checked if they have opted out. That will form routine administrative practice.

You are also clinically alive when organs are removed. You may well be conscious and compis mentis upon your first admission. A terminal cancer patient on a ward will be asked their wishes. If they feel coerced into not opting out then there is a risk their care could be compromised to hasten their death if their organs are deemed on value. That is the potential here which concerns many of us.

now that really is paranoia. Off to the conspiracies forum with ye.

ohnonotgmail

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

If the current Opt-in is not working sufficiently, why would that be, do you think?

people are lazy.

van_beano

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

But how would anybody know you were on such a list unless you told them?

You know yourself in your own mind that you are on the list. Couple this with the PR bias of opting out is a bad thing would lead the said person to may be feeling unnecessary guilt. If the person has a weak mind and succumbs to the pressure and opts-in then suddenly dies and has their organs harvested then it's job well done by the State. New Organ donor enrolled through the tactic of guilt and shaming.

ohnonotgmail

van_beano wrote: »

You know yourself in your own mind that you are on the list. Couple this with the PR bias of opting out is a bad thing would lead the said person to may be feeling unnecessary guilt. If the person has a weak mind and succumbs to the pressure and opts-in then suddenly dies and has their organs harvested then it's job well done by the State. New Organ donor enrolled through the tactic of guilt and shaming.

blimey, talk about delusional.

Mrs Shuttleworth

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

now that really is paranoia. Off to the conspiracies forum with ye.

No, it is highly probable.

I don't intend insulting posters on this thread but anyone who's had direct experience of medical negligence/malfeasance would be very concerned about the ethical implications of this proposal.

If you haven't, then I hope you never do.

ohnonotgmail

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

No, it is highly probable.

I don't intend insulting posters on this thread but anyone who's had direct experience of medical negligence/malfeasance would be very concerned about the ethical implications of this proposal.

If you haven't, then I hope you never do.

to think that a hospital will hasten a patients death because they decided not to donate their organs is both paranoid and delusional.

Stark

van_beano wrote: »

You know yourself in your own mind that you are on the list. Couple this with the PR bias of opting out is a bad thing would lead the said person to may be feeling unnecessary guilt. If the person has a weak mind and succumbs to the pressure and opts-in then suddenly dies and has their organs harvested then it's job well done by the State. New Organ donor enrolled through the tactic of guilt and shaming.

I'd be so devastated if I died suddenly and my organs were harvested and I ended up having second thoughts about it.

No wait, I wouldn't feel anything, I'd be dead...

Mrs Shuttleworth

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

people are lazy.

No, some of us are concerned about the reliability of the relatively new concept of "brain death" and do not implicitly accept it as confirmation of definitive death.

van_beano

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

blimey, talk about delusional.

Are you really suggesting that my hypothetical story couldn't happen? I'd imagine it could very easily occur and it seems to be the policy being followed by the State - with this new legislation they'll either get those

• that wanted to donate but never bother registering
• don't want to donate but never bothered opting out
• that are influenced by undue pressure from the media

ohnonotgmail

van_beano wrote: »

Are you really suggesting that my hypothetical story couldn't happen? I'd imagine it could very easily occur and it seems to be the policy being followed by the State - with this new legislation they'll either get those

• that wanted to donate but never bother registering
• don't want to donate but never bothered opting out
• that are influenced by undue pressure from the media

i think i was quite clear.

van_beano

Stark wrote: »

I'd be so devastated if I died suddenly and my organs were harvested and I ended up having second thoughts about it.

No wait, I wouldn't feel anything, I'd be dead...

It ain't about what you would be feeling as you'd be dead, it's about what sort of Society you have left behind that has resorted to those tactics to gets your organs in the first place.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Stark wrote: »

I'd be so devastated if I died suddenly and my organs were harvested and I ended up having second thoughts about it.

No wait, I wouldn't feel anything, I'd be dead...

You are clinically alive when your organs are harvested. That is why they administer paralyzing drugs before incision.

That is how good the PR spin is; most people believe you are a corpse when the parts come out.

ohnonotgmail

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

You are clinically alive when your organs are harvested.

That is how good the PR spin is; most people believe you are a corpse when the parts come out.

clinically dead but artificially kept alive. well alive enough for your organs not to decay. Not anything i would call actual life.

begbysback

I’m confused - am I in or out?



Probably best to just leave my brain behind if I’m
In.

van_beano

I think the differing theories of the discussion's are getting lost or mixed up.

Those in favour of the automatic opt-in are saying it's a good thing as it'll possibly increase the amount of organ donors

Those not in favour of automatic opt-in are saying so, not on the basis that'll it'll save life's, but it's the way the State are going about implementing this policy with legislation.

Two totally different angles at looking at the same thing.