Alan Watt.

zippy 99 wrote: »

Having to 'Opt Out' is disgraceful.

The donar scheme is well publicised, anyone who wants to donate can easily pick up a card. Leave the rest of us out off it.

Since you can simply opt-out why the big issue. It would be a huge benefit to society as a whole. Which seems to be an alien concept to some of the posters in here.

zippy 99 wrote: »

Moderator behaviour, regarding insulting posters, is also not on.

I try not to be insulting in here myself but sometimes it's very frustrating. The 'truthers' refuse to believe any mainstream media, unless it suits their agenda. And the sources they do believe are so one sided and full of crap that it kills their credibility.

zippy 99 wrote: »

Another thing, why not have a mod on CT who believes in a few of these toipcs.?

The role of a Mod IMHO is to be as impartial as possible. The problem in here is each topic we look at the CT side doesn't stand up to scrutiny. We don't have all the answers but I've yet to see an actual conspiracy once we trash out the reality.

zippy 99 wrote: »

Alan Watt is the most informed man on this planet, certainly among those who are not part of the agenda. Watt himself has been approached to be recruited numerous times into the agenda but has stuck to his morals. He dosent use conspiracy theories, all his arguments are based on publications by the ruling class.

I want to laugh a lot but this statement is so funny I could burst something. I've only looked at a few of his statements so far. All of which are either completely untrue right down to partially incorrect, once you care enough about such things as truth to check.

jessop1 wrote: »

theres always a lucrative market, unless the same scheme is adopted worldwide which is entirely unfeasible.

Either way it doesnt change an individuals right to not have the state assume by default that it can take their organs.

Fair point. I'm personally not sure I'd like my organs taken or not, even though I'd be dead so would I care. One thing I do know is it would be good for society as a whole so for that reason i'd be for it.

jessop1 wrote: »

You didnt answer my first point.

Its the same "hassle or bureaucracy" that a Jehova's Witness goes through to make sure that they aren't given a blood transfusion, should they not be in a position to refuse one.

Given that you appear to accept that opt-out is a reasonable approach to take with medical intervention in general, I can't see why its an unreasonable burden to put in place for another form of medical intervention.

I mean...seriously...if you don't want to be put on a life machine, you can just tell your next of kin "I don't want to be put on a life machine, if that situation ever arises". That is the level of "hassle and bureaucracy" we're talking about...telling someone, or carrying a piece of paper that says no. No-one is asking you to go through some big ordeal to make sure it doesn't happen....just that you go to a minimum of effort to say "not for me, thanks".

And your analogy doesnt hold water. Its one thing to make time sensitive assumptions in order to save a persons life.

The whole purpose of opt-out organ donation is to save someone's life....it just doesn't happen to be the person who's donating the organ.

It should also be noted that, with respect to time-sensitivity, that I would fully support requiring that any patient who was capable of responding be explicitly asked if they wished to opt-out, or if they had already signed an opt-out, in the same sense that I believe any medical intervention should be only carried out with a patient's consent should they be capable of giving or refusing it.

Assuming you can take someones organs after they are dead is another altogether.

Its different only in that its someone else's life that is at stake, rather than the donor.

If you feel that its so unconscionable to want to save someone else's life, then you'd be entirely free to carry a card which says so. No register. Nothing trackable. Or just tell your next of kin that you don't want to be a donor...I'd fully support the notion that in the event where the patient cannot make the decision for themselves, that their next of kin be allowed make it for them - as is the case with regular medical intervention.

or what about those who dont have the capacity or ability to choose for themselves whether they want to donate their organs? eg the mentally ill, children without a guardian etc etc.

Such people also lack the capacity or ability to choose for themselves whether or not they wish to receive medical care. In such a case, society has decided its acceptable to make decisions for them even if such decisions subsequently prove incorrect. We do so because we have decided on balance that this is the right thing to do.

Or those who dont know about the existence of the scheme? Or socially excluded like the homeless??

Unless they fall into the categories you've already mentioned, I've already stated that it should be mandatory to inform anyone of the choice should they be at risk of death.

Additionally, if they aren't admitted to medical care, you don't get their organs. No-one is advocating that the streets be trawled for corpses which are then cut apart to see if they've healthy organs....so again, they already fall into the categories mentioned.

The whole thing stinks for so many reasons I'm sure any moral person should see this.

The implication being that anyone who disagrees that it stinks isn't a moral person...

Considering how often you complain about posters insulting each other, I'm disappointed that you'd make such a comment.

Certainly governments should promote and encourage opt ins and I'd like to see new and innovate ways of doing that eg information campaigns and incentives, but they should never be allowed to assume they can take someones organs.

I see it more as a trade-off. The government offer state-funded health-care, for the good of the many. They are also beginning to look at the issue of organ donation in the same light - its about the common good. I agree that the issues you raise are genuine concerns, but to my eyes they're little different than the assumption that doctors can give whatever care they deem necessary to anyone not in a position to make that decision themselves. On balance, the greater good is served in both cases. Yes, there will be cases where someone's organs will be taken, only to find out later that they - or their legally authorised representatives - had an objection. Or maybe we never find out, but there was an objection. But the tradeoff against this will be that people on deaths door will get to live who would otherwise die.

To be bluntly honest...given the choice between p1ssing someone off or saving one or more livces....I'd take door 2 every day and twice on Sundays. I'd do my best to avoid p1ssing people off, which is why I'd support opt-out as opposed to suggesting something along the lines that acceptance of organ donation be made a pre-condition for receiving state-funded health-care.

I'm not going to assume that people who oppose this haven't lost a loved one because of a lack of organ donors, but if you have, or can even imagine such a situation, ask yourself if you think that loved one's life is worth your outrage. Because thats what's at stake here...the lives of sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters. Its not about funding some private organs-for-sale money-maker to help the rich. Its about alleviating a massive shortfall amongst the "flock".