Organ donating

Cookie_Monster · 15-10-2008 03:47PM

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 · 15-10-2008 03:48PM

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 · 15-10-2008 03:54PM

Burial wrote: »

In Soviet Russia, joke makes YOU!!!!

im not your brother....

Burial · 15-10-2008 03:55PM

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

EL_Loco · 15-10-2008 04:00PM

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 · 15-10-2008 04:03PM

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 · 15-10-2008 04:16PM

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 · 15-10-2008 04:49PM

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 · 15-10-2008 04:52PM

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

Burial · 15-10-2008 05:12PM

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 · 15-10-2008 05:12PM

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

raido9 · 15-10-2008 05:19PM

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! · 15-10-2008 05:25PM

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 · 15-10-2008 05:30PM

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 · 15-10-2008 05:47PM

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 · 15-10-2008 06:14PM

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 · 15-10-2008 06:24PM

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 · 15-10-2008 06:27PM

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 · 15-10-2008 06:46PM

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! · 15-10-2008 07:22PM

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!

thelordofcheese · 15-10-2008 08:10PM

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.

First, there are strict regulations on who gets the organ. Second, the organ can survive for about 3-4 hours outside the body. Combine these two and your scenario is so unlikely to be of no consequence.
Absolutly none.
If your excuse for why opt in is "Mr Druggy/alco will get it" then it's betraying a lack of knowledge about the subject at hand and your own hang ups.

Burial wrote: »

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.

I really love this, you've basically told me you have no idea how the system works, on even a base level, but you've got no problem having an argument based on that ignorance.
Go away, do some research, then come back. I'm not here to educate you.

Burial wrote: »

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.

Spain is opt-in. The point has always been valid because it shows that even with the highest level of people not being selfish fucks that demand still outstrips supply. That the current system is not the better of the two.

Second, you would decide, you can decide to opt out or not. See, a choice.

Burial wrote: »

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.

Wow, you're really bad at this.
As long as you're trying to rationalise the illusion of control over your assets after you die with donating a potentially life saving organ or two, then you're going to remain really bad at this.

And no, i don't care about the people who murder me (i assume this is a hypothetical question in the event i were to be murdered as opposed to a prediction of sorts). I'm dead, what does it matter? Justice is for the living.

Burial wrote: »

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.

if the original premise is bad everything that comes from that is bad. Yours was terrible.

Burial wrote: »

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.

and your whole argument seems to be i care about what happens to them, and i care so much i'm going to let them go to waste. You've managed to sit comfortable between two barstools there.

Burial wrote: »

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.

You've done no such thing, there is no coherient point as to why there shouldn't be one, at least not from you. Come up with something more than "they're my organs and i want them for all that breathing i won't be doing".

shenanigans1982 · 15-10-2008 08:38PM

Kablamo! wrote: »

does she not deserve a second chance? Who are you to play God?

No, this is self inflicted. Why should the chance be taken on giving a useful liver to somebody who is most likely going to just do the same thing again?

If a member of your family was in need of a liver transplant and it was given to somebody who had caused the damage to their own how p*ssed off would you be?

Capt'n Midnight · 16-10-2008 12:06AM

Organ donor should be opt-out
it could be done easily via the European Health Insurance Card
http://www.ehic.ie/apply.htm

cost of implimentation would be close to zero,

just put a big disclaimer on the web site and on all application forms to cover the legal suff and problem sorted.

PS. don't forget to fill in the box on your driving license

HammerHeadGym · 16-10-2008 12:15AM

Burial wrote: »

My mother cannot donate blood. What would happen her?

HA HA HA! Clutch at straws much? Naturally, as with any scheme, there would be people who, through no fault of their own, are exempt from the scheme who would receive all the benefits of a conciencous and decent person. This benevolent concept already exists at every level of society (welfare, council housing, free healthcare). It is nothing short of stultifiyingly stupid to suggest an infant would be expected to donate blood before it's body is able to cope. As it would for a pensioner. As it is now, for example.:rolleyes:

Basically my idea works like any aspirational society should; the able bodied put in when they can, in order to be able to take out, when needs arise. Those who choose not to contribute, don't receive the benifits.

Think of it like a bank. You can only get money off them, if your prepared to give them some in the first place.

HammerHeadGym · 16-10-2008 12:16AM

snyper wrote: »

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

And that's just off the cheese.

KnifeWRENCH · 16-10-2008 01:54AM

I think an opt-out system would be better than an opt-in system. It comforts me knowing that my organs will be donated, becuase then there's no chance I'll be buried alive!

Oh yeah, and all that saving lives stuff is ok too, I guess...

As for blood, I would donate if I could but I'm on Roaccutane - if a pregnant woman got my blood, her baby would be deformed! I'll probably start donating a few months after I've finished the treatment.

slipss · 16-10-2008 04:47AM

TPD wrote: »

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

Yes they should and no there should be no opt out and anyone that posted in this thread saying anything else should not have the option of waiting till they die to have their organs removed.

hot2def · 16-10-2008 09:59AM

in fairness, there are a suprising amount of people who are not eligible to give blood through no fault of their own.

Cookie_Monster · 16-10-2008 10:13AM

Kablamo! wrote: »

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?

NO.

Why should someone who abuses there own body through alcoholism be intiled to abuse someone elses after when there are potentially dozens or hundreds of people who, through no fault of therre own, also need a new liver?

Likewise, George Best should never have gotten another liver and really only did so as he was an "improtant celebrity"

Cookie_Monster · 16-10-2008 10:15AM

slipss wrote: »

Yes they should and no there should be no opt out and anyone that posted in this thread saying anything else should not have the option of waiting till they die to have their organs removed.

Any particular reasons to back up such a strong statement?

Organ donating

Comments