nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Shelflife

Personally i think the opt out program is a good idea, if you feel that strong about not donating you will make sure you opt out.

i will let them take anything they want coz when your gone your gone, if any of my family were in a position to donate i would sign the form in a heartbeat, if it makes someones life easier then we can take comfort in that.

i donate blood and cant work out why everyone doesnt do it, it baffles me to see parents in the cancer ward in crumlin not giving blood because they dont want to or i dont like needles when it it that very product that keeps your child alive.

Burial you may well pay your taxes and contribute to society but that dont make blood. Donations make blood and all the tax money in the world wont make blood appear when you need it. If noone donated or not enough people then many would die.

Burial

Ann22 wrote: »

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.

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? 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!

I understand that getting over an addiction is not easy and is a really hard and painful process. I'm glad your mother is taking steps to cure her addiction, however, why should I extend her life when she delibertly shortened her life?? I agree they are people who matter, but you can't ignore that she's wanting an organ when it was through no fualt but her own. Why should I give my organs to her? Because she cares for her family? Because her family cares for her? There are thousands of others who haven't shortened there lives delibertly and who are need my organs for genuine reasons. Tell me why she is more deserving then someone else?

She deserves a second chance and I don't "play God". I don't choose who/where my organs go when/if I donate them. That's for the State to decide.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

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.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1038859/How-deep-frozen-organs-spell-end-transplant-waiting-lists.html

While I agree the daily mail isn't the most reliable of sources, this system looks promising. I'd like to point out that I thought by normal freezing process, the organs would last longer then is described here:

http://www.med.umich.edu/trans/transweb/faq/q24.shtml

I now know, that organs won't last very long. I had thought they'd last a week to a month if frozen.

And my excuse[sic] isn't for mr.Alco or Mr.Drugie. I was making an uniformed assumption that organs when donated last longer then a few hours/days. I didn't know this. As the daily mail article suggests, the new freezing would help cut down the donation list. Anyway, the whole point of that arguement (Mr.Alco/Drugie) you have no idea who or where your organs go after you die and you may not care, but I care if I give it to never gone into rehab drugie who is definatly going to reoffend. I don't consider that as an adequate donation. I'd prefer if my organs didn't goto him. That won't happen in the system we have now, which wasn't what I was talking about in the first place anyway. I had also assumed there was a reason why most countries in the world had an opt-in rather than an opt-out.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

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.

Actually, I knew at the base level how the system worked, what I didn't know was of doctors who did kill patients for organs. I didn't know about this until my friend told me, years ago. Anyway, you've just presumed I didn't know at a base level because you ignored my arguements, but whatever, I've went away and did my research and my reasoning has still not changed on the matter. I still feel it should be opt-in and not opt-out. In fact the UK had a vote to make the country opt-out but they refused on the basis that they'd still have to ask the next of kin, Religious principles/objections would still be the same, and people would have a negative feeling towards the scheme as of the distrust due to the Alder Hey organs scandal. But hey I'm not here to educate you, so I shouldn't link or support my arguements, should I?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alder_Hey_organs_scandal

Not to mention it's been proven that opt-out schemes don't work/improve the system.

Sweden has an opt-out law does not seem to influence the donation rate per million of population, which is lower than that of the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_donation wrote:

Some political decisions have unintended consequences for donation rates. For example, motorcycle helmet laws and drunk driving laws have lowered the number of sudden deaths in vehicle accidents, and therefore lowered the number of otherwise healthy corpses which could have been organ donors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_donation wrote:

Expansive legal definitions of death, such as Spain uses, also increase the pool of eligible donors by allowing physicians to declare a patient to be dead at an earlier stage, when the organs are still in good physical condition

thelordofcheese wrote: »

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

The same limitations of this system would still apply. Time restraints on organs and increase in current safety standards. Not to mention, Spain had to expand the reasoning for a person to be declared dead, and that helped but didn't increase supply. (Only a very, very tiny margain did it increase.) Another point as to why an opt-out system isn't that much better:

http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/newsroom/statements_and_stances/statements/opt_in_or_out.jsp wrote:

In fact, while Spain is recognised as having a higher number of donors than the UK, it is acknowledged by the director of national transplant organisation in Spain himself that the increase in organ donation during the 1990s could not be attributed to a change in legislation which had remained the same since 1979. The improvements in donor rates in Spain followed the implementation of a comprehensive national procurement system.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

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

You can opt-in now! What makes your system better then the one we have now? In fact it would suggest, based on the fact 15 million people have only signed up in the UK, that all those who didn't sign up, would sign out on the new policy. Unless those people haven't decided and your saying it's better when they die to use their organs despite them not fully wanting or agreeing to?

Those who would be silent would indicate a lack of understanding rather than agreement with the "opting-out" policy. They'll understand about organ donation, when they opt-in. Thereby making an informed, knowledgeable decision. Not to mention next of kin still have the right to say no. So opting-out would still mean doctors would have to ask the families anyway.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

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.

You've yet to explain, why my comparision doesn't hold true. You've just constantly said "Your no good at this" "Your rubbish" etc etc. So explain to me, why caring about your possessions when you die, but not caring about your self isn't hypocritical? You do care what happens when you die, which is why your giving them away when you die. I care what happens to me when I die, which is why I'm not giving them away. What is so hard to understand? I can't actually understand how you've failed to realise my point, twice. (Potentially for the third time now).

thelordofcheese wrote: »

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.

Granted you won't know or care because you would be dead, the fact that your alive knowing murders are caught does make some people (Maybe not you) happy that they aren't just let go free because the person they murdered wouldn't have cared, because they are dead. I personally like the fact that if my life is ended by murder/manslaughter, that the person who did it would be held accountable. (At least try to be held accountable)

thelordofcheese wrote: »

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

No, actually. That wasn't my orginal premise and you continue to think my whole arguement is about that one point. I've raised my point and tried to draw a comparison using an example to illustrate my point. You've just disagreed with the comparisson and you've still to prove that "terrible" [:rolleyes:] comparison wrong even though you've just claimed it was bad and rubbish. Tell me why it doesn't work, or stop trying to avoid the reality that my comparison might make (some) sense but you refuse to accept it.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

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.

No if you didn't care, you'd let them goto waste and wouldn't have made an informed and knowledgeable opinion. But your not. Your going to donate them, because you care that they could save a life. Even argueing for an opt-out system means you care what happens to you when you die.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

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".

I don't want to donate them and I don't care that I'm never going to save a life. I also don't like any possibility of any doctor who seems I'm an organ donor, delibritly giving me less care for someone else's advantage. I also don't want to participate in donating organs because I prefer to die intact and not cut open. Which of the reasons I've just said as to why I'm not going to donate any organs is invalid? If there all not invalid, then your arguement is just nothing, except that you can't accept I've made my choice, for reasons I honestly can't comprehend, especially from someone who doesn't care about what happens to them when they die, but care what happens to me when I die....

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

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

Why does it have to be this way and not the other way? (wanting opt-out system rather than opt-in) I've posted questions to it and I'm not going to post them again.

HammerHeadGym wrote: »

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.

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.

So, would I be donating my spare lung/kidney/etc, because I have two and I can still live off of one? Or is it that I haven't signed upto the organ donor card scheme yet a reason for letting me die? If you use your bank analogy, I put money in [taxes], others put more in[being doctors, donating blood/organs whilst paying taxes], yet we're all able to withdraw the same. In your system, everyone would have to donate an organ before they could get an organ. It's crazy and the idea of that system would never work. how about if I live to be a pensioner and I haven't donated anything or have/n't signed up to an organ donor card? Why would I be allowed to get an organ, because I'd never be able to give any organs anymore. And I'm unsure but I had thought most senior people could still donate upto a point.

square_igloo wrote: »

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.

Good for you! You've made your choice. It's not comforting to me to know that my organs would be donated against my wishes.

hot2def wrote:

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

Yeah, which is a shame. I know of loads of people who can't donate for this or that reason.

TPD wrote:

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

The original arguement. With which I replied, no. It should be people's choice, and having opt-out is just a sneakier way of getting more organs off people who never decided on the matter.

And a few points I found interesting:

Wikipedia wrote:

This rate compares to 24.8 per million in Austria, where families are rarely asked to donate organs, and 22.2 per million in France, which -- like Spain -- has a presumed-consent system

Wikipedia wrote:

Hootan Roozrokh, MD, of California has been charged with prescribing excessive doses of morphine and sedatives to hasten the death of a man with adrenal leukodystrophy and irreversible brain damage, in order to procure his organs for transplant. The case being brought against Roozrokh is the first such case in the US.
At California's Emanuel Medical Center, neurologist Narges Pazouki, MD, said an organ-procurement organization representative pressed her to declare a patient brain-dead before the appropriate tests had been done.[30] She refused.

This was quoted by someone else in another forum.

wrote:

Everyone who makes an organ transplant possible, from the surgeon who does the transplant, to the janitor who cleans the operating room afterwards, only one individual is expected to do so out of the goodness of their heart, with no expectation of financial reward: The donor.

slipss

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Any particular reasons to back up such a strong statement?

Little kids die every day (and other people aswell, I just feel worse for the little kids for some reason) waiting on organs that never arrive, and everyday hundreds of people are buried in the muck with over a dozen perfectly good organs that are left to rot. Anyone that would rather be buried or burned with their organs in their useless body than give them to a dying kid that is living their short life in constant agony is a twisted cuunt, or some kind of religious nut job, but mainly a twisted cuunt. They are my particular reasons. Disagree much?

Burial

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

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"

Well, I wouldn't like my organs going to someone like George Best unless there were conditions that they'd clean up their act and anytime they'd reoffend would mean removal of my organ. Harsh, and never going to happen, but I can't stand the thought of someone donating to someone else only for them to abuse that gift.

Maybe George Best got his liver donation from a loyal fan? But I agree, no willingness to change on his part and to get a liver was bad form.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Any particular reasons to back up such a strong statement?

I think he may have been joking...

Shelflife wrote: »

Personally i think the opt out program is a good idea, if you feel that strong about not donating you will make sure you opt out.

As I've eposted above, it just seems like a cheap way to obtain more organs and you'd still have to get next of kin permission. That's not even mentioning the fact that, an "opt-out" system doesn't make the whole system better...

Shelflife wrote: »

i will let them take anything they want coz when your gone your gone, if any of my family were in a position to donate i would sign the form in a heartbeat, if it makes someones life easier then we can take comfort in that.

i donate blood and cant work out why everyone doesnt do it, it baffles me to see parents in the cancer ward in crumlin not giving blood because they dont want to or i dont like needles when it it that very product that keeps your child alive.

Burial you may well pay your taxes and contribute to society but that dont make blood. Donations make blood and all the tax money in the world wont make blood appear when you need it. If noone donated or not enough people then many would die.

Which is why they're called donations. It's upto people to give if they wish. I can't even see my logic in not having given blood already and I most definatly will at least try harder/put more of an effort in and try to attend the next blood drive or clinic.

slipss

Burial wrote: »

I think he may have been joking...

About the whole killing thing, well yes I was making a joke, maybe in bad taste, but not the rest.

Morgase

slipss wrote: »

Little kids die every day (and other people aswell, I just feel worse for the little kids for some reason) waiting on organs that never arrive, and everyday hundreds of people are buried in the muck with over a dozen perfectly good organs that are left to rot. Anyone that would rather be buried or burned with their organs in their useless body than give them to a dying kid that is living their short life in constant agony is a twisted cuunt, or some kind of religious nut job, but mainly a twisted cuunt. They are my particular reasons. Disagree much?

+1

I abhor waste, whether it's throwing away perfectly good food that could feed someone, or throwing away perfectly good organs that could save a life.

Cookie_Monster

Morgase wrote: »

+1

I abhor waste, whether it's throwing away perfectly good food that could feed someone, or throwing away perfectly good organs that could save a life.

Sure why "waste" the rest of the body then? Grind it up and feed it to the cows or spread it as fertiliser

HammerHeadGym

Burial wrote: »

...So, would I be donating my spare lung/kidney/etc, because I have two and I can still live off of one?

Of course not. That would be stupid. All you have to do is be listed as an organ donor to qualify.

Burial wrote: »

...Or is it that I haven't signed upto the organ donor card scheme yet a reason for letting me die?

That would be just as stupid. With an opt out system, you would only have to bother frittering away the ten minutes it takes to fill out a form if you didn't want to help anyone after you die.

Burial wrote: »

...In your system, everyone would have to donate an organ before they could get an organ.

Nope. We're still in the realm of stupidity here. Maybe if you think of it like insurance. You don't have to give them a new car, before you can claim, do you?

Burial wrote: »

...It's crazy

Does the word irony, mean anything to you?

Burial wrote: »

...if I live to be a pensioner and I haven't donated anything or haven't signed up to an organ donor card?

If you were on the scheme, you would be entitled. If you haven't signed up you wouldn't.

Burial wrote: »

...Why would I be allowed to get an organ, because I'd never be able to give any organs anymore. And I'm unsure but I had thought most senior people could still donate up to a point.

You appear to be arguing with yourself here, but what the hell. If you organs we're unsuitable for donation, they could still be used for research by the medical profession, consequently, you would still qualify.

Burial wrote: »

...know of loads of people who can't donate for this or that reason...

That's cool. I'm not suggesting we become an uncaring society. But able bodied people, with nothing more than there on selfhishness to fall back on should be left out in the cold.

Burial wrote: »

...having opt-out is just a sneakier way of getting more organs off people who never decided on the matter...

If someone hasn't bothered to opt out they clearly don't give a sh!t about it.

Question for you burial; Lets say you will be beheaded in the morning, for whatever reason. You have a daughter who will die without a liver transplant. You are the only suitable donor. Would she get yours, or would you tell her you were uncomfortable with the idea?

ScumLord

Burial wrote: »

I understand that getting over an addiction is not easy and is a really hard and painful process. I'm glad your mother is taking steps to cure her addiction, however, why should I extend her life when she delibertly shortened her life?? I agree they are people who matter, but you can't ignore that she's wanting an organ when it was through no fualt but her own. Why should I give my organs to her? Because she cares for her family? Because her family cares for her?

Because you don't need them anymore. Now, I couldn't read your entire post or any of the rest of thread but I hate this attitude that some people seem to have. That anyone that makes mistakes isn't good enough for either forgiveness, medical care, freedom.

It doesn't matter anyway it's not like doctors can take any old liver and stick it in any person they like. The liver goes to the person it can help the most.

I think the OPs idea is the best way to do things. If you really don't like the idea of your organs going to people you don't like then opt out. Simple.

thelordofcheese

Burial wrote: »

At death the body effectively became the property of the state, and as you said, for many Christians (And other religions included) this would conflict with the respect owed in biblical and for the traditions they have to the dead body.

No major branch of christianty has any objections to organ donation, the only two i can think of are gypsies and Shinto.

Burial wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1038859/How-deep-frozen-organs-spell-end-transplant-waiting-lists.html

While I agree the daily mail isn't the most reliable of sources, this system looks promising. I'd like to point out that I thought by normal freezing process, the organs would last longer then is described here:

http://www.med.umich.edu/trans/transweb/faq/q24.shtml

I now know, that organs won't last very long. I had thought they'd last a week to a month if frozen.

And my excuse[sic] isn't for mr.Alco or Mr.Drugie. I was making an uniformed assumption that organs when donated last longer then a few hours/days. I didn't know this. As the daily mail article suggests, the new freezing would help cut down the donation list. Anyway, the whole point of that arguement (Mr.Alco/Drugie) you have no idea who or where your organs go after you die and you may not care, but I care if I give it to never gone into rehab drugie who is definatly going to reoffend. I don't consider that as an adequate donation. I'd prefer if my organs didn't goto him. That won't happen in the system we have now, which wasn't what I was talking about in the first place anyway. I had also assumed there was a reason why most countries in the world had an opt-in rather than an opt-out.

So your objection to donating organs is that you thought that they'd go to people who in your eyes don't deserve them. This is of course was all based on next to no understanding of how organ donation works and how waiting lists work.
Cool.

Burial wrote: »

Actually, I knew at the base level how the system worked, what I didn't know was of doctors who did kill patients for organs. I didn't know about this until my friend told me, years ago. Anyway, you've just presumed I didn't know at a base level because you ignored my arguements, but whatever, I've went away and did my research and my reasoning has still not changed on the matter. I still feel it should be opt-in and not opt-out. In fact the UK had a vote to make the country opt-out but they refused on the basis that they'd still have to ask the next of kin, Religious principles/objections would still be the same, and people would have a negative feeling towards the scheme as of the distrust due to the Alder Hey organs scandal. But hey I'm not here to educate you, so I shouldn't link or support my arguements, should I?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alder_Hey_organs_scandal

You should have had an idea before you started.

The Uk case isn't a point against an opt-out system, it just shows that it's unworkable there due to the legal requirement to ask the next of kin. Which is a hangover from the opt-in system. If it's an opt-in system people won't bother to get organ donation cards because they are fundimentally lazy, They always assume there will be time.
So we're left with a grey area, this person may well have been for organ donation but also lazy.
Switch the scenario around and seeing as everyone is automatically in, only those who have bizzare objections to organ donation will opt out. It keeps those who want to hold onto their organs post death firmly connected to the usless flesh they don't need anymore and everyone else is a potential candidate.

And the adler heys incident is not significant.

Burial wrote: »

Not to mention it's been proven that opt-out schemes don't work/improve the system.
Sweden has an opt-out law does not seem to influence the donation rate per million of population, which is lower than that of the UK.

you conviently forgot to mention Austria where the dontation rate has quadrupled since the introduction of a hard opt-out law in the late 80's

Burial wrote: »

The same limitations of this system would still apply. Time restraints on organs and increase in current safety standards. Not to mention, Spain had to expand the reasoning for a person to be declared dead, and that helped but didn't increase supply. (Only a very, very tiny margain did it increase.) Another point as to why an opt-out system isn't that much better:

Austria wants a word with you.
Again.

Burial wrote: »

You can opt-in now! What makes your system better then the one we have now? In fact it would suggest, based on the fact 15 million people have only signed up in the UK, that all those who didn't sign up, would sign out on the new policy. Unless those people haven't decided and your saying it's better when they die to use their organs despite them not fully wanting or agreeing to?

Actually, the BBC article where you're taking most of your information from noted that while only 13Million had signed on, studies have suggested that nearly 70% of people wanted to donate their organs after death.

yeah, forgot to mention that, didn't you.

Burial wrote: »

You've yet to explain, why my comparision doesn't hold true. You've just constantly said "Your no good at this" "Your rubbish" etc etc. So explain to me, why caring about your possessions when you die, but not caring about your self isn't hypocritical? You do care what happens when you die, which is why your giving them away when you die. I care what happens to me when I die, which is why I'm not giving them away. What is so hard to understand? I can't actually understand how you've failed to realise my point, twice. (Potentially for the third time now).

It's hard to understand because it's irrational. Firstly, i do not care about what happens to me after i die. My organs *might* be used to help somone, however given how few people die and have viable organs that probably won't happen. But if somone can use it, go for it. if not, c'est la vie.
Second, you have no control over your organs or assets when you die. I know you think you do, but you don't.
Even if you write a will, where does your 'control' end? You leave your house to one child and they decide to sell it and spend the money on coke and hookers. It's probably not what you wanted, but you can't do anything about it and never could. Any idea of deciding what happens to you after you die is just an illusion.

Burial wrote: »

I don't want to donate them and I don't care that I'm never going to save a life. I also don't like any possibility of any doctor who seems I'm an organ donor, delibritly giving me less care for someone else's advantage.

Nobody likes that idea, however it's not likely, stop inventing boogymen to back up your selfish ideas.
It's a childish and shortsighted scenario that only a fool would posit as being anywhere close to reality.

Burial wrote: »

I also don't want to participate in donating organs because I prefer to die intact and not cut open.

You do know they don't leave you splayed open after they remove the organ, right?
You can donate organs and still have an open casket funeral if you're that vain.
They're surgeons, not butchers.

Burial wrote: »

Which of the reasons I've just said as to why I'm not going to donate any organs is invalid? If there all not invalid, then your arguement is just nothing, except that you can't accept I've made my choice, for reasons I honestly can't comprehend, especially from someone who doesn't care about what happens to them when they die, but care what happens to me when I die....

All of them. They're selfish, cowardly, stupid and based on nothing other than what you imagine the reality to be rather than the fact of the matter.

Burial

HammerHeadGym wrote: »

Of course not. That would be stupid. All you have to do is be listed as an organ donor to qualify.

How about those who have legitimate reasons like religion medical etc? You've said they can opt-out, with no cost to them. But how would such a system be, to show those that don't want to stay in but want out, but are fearful, that they won't receive any adequate medical care because they, like me, don't want to be forcfully opted-in.

HammerHeadGym wrote: »

That would be just as stupid. With an opt out system, you would only have to bother frittering away the ten minutes it takes to fill out a form if you didn't want to help anyone after you die.

How late would it be for someone to sign up? When they realise they need a kidney to live? Is it too late then?

HammerHeadGym wrote: »

Nope. We're still in the realm of stupidity here. Maybe if you think of it like insurance. You don't have to give them a new car, before you can claim, do you?

I get the comparison but that wouldn't work. Everyone should be getting their "claims" answered then if they'd paid up.

I think your stuck in the realm of stupidity. For the governments job is to be unbiased in what they do. Your system would make opt-outters not getthe adequate health-care they've been paying the State to receive. Also, why would criminals who've signed up get organs but not me?

I really don't want to write out an old post so here it is. It's for blood, but just change that to organs and you'd get what I'm saying.

Burial wrote:

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

HammerHeadGym wrote: »

Burial wrote:

It's crazy

Does the word irony, mean anything to you?

Yes it does, but in your context, no. Please explain the irony of thinking your system is crazy.

HammerHeadGym wrote: »

Burial wrote:

...if I live to be a pensioner and I haven't donated anything or haven't signed up to an organ donor card?

If you were on the scheme, you would be entitled. If you haven't signed up you wouldn't.

Well then why don't I sign up as a pensioner whose organs aren't donateable? I'd have contributed the same as any other pensioner who had signed up to be a donor, but never were.

HammerHeadGym wrote: »

Burial wrote:

Why would I be allowed to get an organ, because I'd never be able to give any organs anymore. And I'm unsure but I had thought most senior people could still donate up to a point.

You appear to be arguing with yourself here, but what the hell. If you organs we're unsuitable for donation, they could still be used for research by the medical profession, consequently, you would still qualify.

I'm sorry if I came off as argueing with myself, when I'm not. Anyway, I was saying I don't know if pensioners are disqualified or not. Could someone please clarify that for me. Your forgetting on an opt-out system you still have to ask the next of kin incase they do/n't want to be opted out. Also what would happen to those that sign up to be a donor and get an organ and then opt-out? Also, you need permission from the person to donate for medical study as it's against some peoples religion.

All in all my arguement, is that the State is undiscriminative. It can't disqualify a Jew because it's against their beliefs and yet include Catholics.

HammerHeadGym wrote: »

That's cool. I'm not suggesting we become an uncaring society. But able bodied people, with nothing more than there on selfhishness to fall back on should be left out in the cold.

Why? Your being as bad as they are! You cant say their selfish, when you want to form an exclusive club between organ donors.

HammerHeadGym wrote: »

If someone hasn't bothered to opt out they clearly don't give a sh!t about it.

Question for you burial; Lets say you will be beheaded in the morning, for whatever reason. You have a daughter who will die without a liver transplant. You are the only suitable donor. Would she get yours, or would you tell her you were uncomfortable with the idea?

No, if they haven't opt-out they haven't made an informed opinion on the matter. Your presuming everyone knows 100% about organ donation. Before this I didn't know that organs couldn't last longer than a week.

To answer your question, I hope my future daughter doesn't need my liver and I won't be beheaded. However, I would give my liver to her. Let me ask you a question. Your about to die and this murdererous peado who is about to be put to death, is on the top of the list, with a child who desperatly needs a liver second on the list. The child would die without the organs, however the murdererous paedo can live until he is put to death. The State prosecutor gives you the option of who to give it to. Knowing that your organs won't be of use to him/her as they'd die an hour after the surgery and render their/your organs unuseable, who would you give your organs to?

There are special cases.

ScumLord wrote: »

Because you don't need them anymore. Now, I couldn't read your entire post or any of the rest of thread but I hate this attitude that some people seem to have. That anyone that makes mistakes isn't good enough for either forgiveness, medical care, freedom.

It doesn't matter anyway it's not like doctors can take any old liver and stick it in any person they like. The liver goes to the person it can help the most.

I think the OPs idea is the best way to do things. If you really don't like the idea of your organs going to people you don't like then opt out. Simple.

I was argueing with Kablamo! over his comment that I'm playing God by not donating my organs and that (if his mother did need an organ) his mother deserves one because she's a recovery alcoholic who has people that she cares for and who cares for her, who shortened her own life and whats me to make up the years she's lost. If that scenario were to arise, Kablamo! can give his organs away. I'd much prefer to give it to people who didn't waste their lives and need it much more than someone whose had 30 or so years of life, while a child has had anything under 18. however, I don't make choices as to whether who or where my organs goto if I donate them to the State. I fully agree that anyone and everyone should get full access to medical care. Which was my arguement. Just because I don't donate doesn't mean I can't get any organs/blood/medical treatment when I need it. Everyone is treated the same. If you had read two lines down in my arguement and/or Kablamo! post you would've understood that.

Anyway, why should it be opt-out? I've heard nothing other than more organs being available to people. There are other factors to conisder. It isn't about getting more organs. Anyway because you can't read my other posts, here are the main ones for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_donation wrote:

Some political decisions have unintended consequences for donation rates. For example, motorcycle helmet laws and drunk driving laws have lowered the number of sudden deaths in vehicle accidents, and therefore lowered the number of otherwise healthy corpses which could have been organ donors.

At death the body effectively became the property of the state, and as you said, for many Christians (And other religions included) this would conflict with the respect owed in biblical and for the traditions they have to the dead body.

Sweden has an opt-out law does not seem to influence the donation rate per million of population, which is lower than that of the UK.

The same limitations of this system would still apply. Time restraints on organs and increase in current safety standards. Not to mention, Spain had to expand the reasoning for a person to be declared dead, and that helped but didn't increase supply. (Only a very, very tiny margain did it increase.)

You can opt-in now! What makes your system better then the one we have now? In fact it would suggest, based on the fact 15 million people have only signed up in the UK, that all those who didn't sign up, would sign out on the new policy. Unless those people haven't decided and your saying it's better when they die to use their organs despite them not fully wanting or agreeing to?

Those who would be silent would indicate a lack of understanding rather than agreement with the "opting-out" policy. They'll understand about organ donation, when they opt-in. Thereby making an informed, knowledgeable decision. Not to mention next of kin still have the right to say no. So opting-out would still mean doctors would have to ask the families anyway.

Mark200

I definitely would agree with there being an automatic opt-in, and then people can opt out using the current opt-in system....by ticking a box on their drivers licence or something.

There's no excuse to disagree with this, if you don't want your organs taken then opt-out. Simple as.

If your argument is that the increase would be very very small...well that means that a few extra lives will be saved by the system. Who cares how many lives? If it saves one then it's worth it.

Varkov

They'll never have my squiglly-spooch!

Cookie_Monster

Varkov wrote: »

They'll never have my squiglly-spooch!

Hooray!

HammerHeadGym

Burial wrote: »

...Your about to die and this murdererous peado who is about to be put to death, is on the top of the list, with a child who desperatly needs a liver second on the list. The child would die without the organs, however the murdererous paedo can live until he is put to death.

Are you serious?? He can live without my organs? Then he wouldn't be at the top of of a donor list. Anyway, the only choice I would have is; Do I want my organs to save someone's life or do I not? I would choose yes. It is the medical profession who choose where to send the organs. Ethically, I'm pretty sure it's to the person with the best chance of survival.

Burial wrote: »

..The State prosecutor gives you the option of who to give it to. Knowing that your organs won't be of use to him/her as they'd die an hour after the surgery and render their/your organs unuseable, who would you give your organs to?

Where do I begin? The state prosecutor doesn't have a say in where my organs go. Nor do I. The likelyhood of a murderer receiving a liver transplant so he can be killed an hour later is a bit on the stupid side, don't you think? Anyway, assuming satan was ice skating to work that day, it wouldn't matter as in my system, if you receive an organ donation, you are automatically an organ donor, so our terminally ill kiddie would still get what he needed. Although he might have to wait till we put it into a paedo for an hour.

Also, you seem to be inventing scenarios to attack rather than answer direct questions. This is known as a logical phallacy (specifically a straw man argument) and is debate club 101. As such it renders your argument invalid.

Burial wrote: »

...However, I would give my liver to [my daughter] .

Then sir, you are an nothing short of a hippocrite and I can no longer converse with you. You would receive a donation but not make one. How typically me fein of you. It's people like you make me despair for humanity. I pity your kind. I hope your years of fumbling in a greasy till are satisfying. Best of luck.

Kablamo!

Burial wrote: »

I was argueing with Kablamo! over his comment that I'm playing God by not donating my organs and that (if his mother did need an organ) his mother deserves one because she's a recovery alcoholic who has people that she cares for and who cares for her, who shortened her own life and whats me to make up the years she's lost. If that scenario were to arise, Kablamo! can give his organs away. I'd much prefer to give it to people who didn't waste their lives and need it much more than someone whose had 30 or so years of life, while a child has had anything under 18. however, I don't make choices as to whether who or where my organs goto if I donate them to the State. I fully agree that anyone and everyone should get full access to medical care. Which was my arguement. Just because I don't donate doesn't mean I can't get any organs/blood/medical treatment when I need it. Everyone is treated the same. If you had read two lines down in my arguement and/or Kablamo! post you would've understood that.

And I was arguing with (I'm not actually exactly sure who to be honest, this thread is getting bloody messy!) ? who initially was talking about a build up of organs, a surplus.
By no means should people like my mother recieve an organ when there's people more needing on the list, however, if there was an organ there why wouldn't she deserve it? She gave blood regularly for 20 years, she might be an alcoholic but at the end of the day she's still a human being and a person, so any statements of mr.Alco/drugie are just small minded and f-in disgraceful imo.

On a side note, my father is currently being assessed for the possibility of a lung transplant (non smoker, working with various paints has caused him to develop Pulmonary Fibrosis). He is 72. Would you also say that he has lived his life and should not be put on the list even though he has children under 20 and is working full time when possible?
It seems as though people think only under 18's should deserve transplants?

JC 2K3

Ann22 wrote: »

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:

Well if people are put off donating organs due to beliefs like this, it's just proof that that belief is detrimental to humanity.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Sure why "waste" the rest of the body then? Grind it up and feed it to the cows or spread it as fertiliser

Are they viable uses for human corpses? If so, then why not indeed?

thelordofcheese

Varkov wrote: »

They'll never have my squiglly-spooch!

More organs means more human, it will work!

JC 2K3

I definitely think it should be compulsory, or at least have an opt-out scheme.

I mean, thousands of wonderfully talented, yet disadvantaged children will never get the chance to foster their musical ability, while organs lie untouched in disused churches around the world.

MagicMarker

Gone Drinking wrote: »

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

Really? I've stipulated in my will that in the event of my death I am to be buried with an orphan, just to see if they'd do it.

Burial

thelordofcheese wrote: »

No major branch of christianty has any objections to organ donation, the only two i can think of are gypsies and Shinto.

If that is the case, then why hasn't there been a greater uptake in organ donation cards? I mean some religions even encourage it.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

So your objection to donating organs is that you thought that they'd go to people who in your eyes don't deserve them. This is of course was all based on next to no understanding of how organ donation works and how waiting lists work.

Cool.

I gave a hyopthetical situation, not based on the current health system. I already knew before people get pushed up and down depending on how they need it. You've just constantly assumed I know nothing and that all my arguements mean nothing. You think because I got one thing wrong, everything I'm saying is wrong. Trying answering my posts and not the parts of it you want to.

Cool.

Answer me this:

Most countries in the world have an opt-in rather than an opt-out. Why?

The UK government had a vote for an opt-out system in parliament, yet it was rejected. Why?

thelordofcheese wrote: »

You should have had an idea before you started.

The Uk case isn't a point against an opt-out system, it just shows that it's unworkable there due to the legal requirement to ask the next of kin. Which is a hangover from the opt-in system. If it's an opt-in system people won't bother to get organ donation cards because they are fundimentally lazy, They always assume there will be time.

So we're left with a grey area, this person may well have been for organ donation but also lazy.

Switch the scenario around and seeing as everyone is automatically in, only those who have bizzare objections to organ donation will opt out. It keeps those who want to hold onto their organs post death firmly connected to the usless flesh they don't need anymore and everyone else is a potential candidate.

Now reverse the scenario. People who would want to opt-out, can't. Do you think that it'd be workable here considering the legal requirements?

Do you honestly think that those people would care enough if they've always meant to and never did? If they did, that's what asking the next of kin is for. That won't change in an opt-out system because they'll still have to ask to see if they changed their wishes before opting out/in.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

And the adler heys incident is not significant.

Why? It shows that in the public there could be some distrust in the medical system. A result of a lack of trust, means people won't sign up for organ donation. They would sign up if the trust was there. If this incident happened in an opt-out system alot more people would opt-out out of fear. So yes, it does have relevance and significance, but you choose to ignore for no reason, other then your belief it isn't significant to this debate.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

you conviently forgot to mention Austria where the dontation rate has quadrupled since the introduction of a hard opt-out law in the late 80's

You conveintly forgot to answer most of my questions. You also seem to forget Sweden which has an opt-out STILL has a similar rate to the UK. You can take a case where it worked in one country and one where it didn't. Just because it improved in one country doesn't mean it'll work in others. You neglecting to mention Spain and how they had to EXPAND the meaning of death and the quote I mentioned, that said Spain didn't increase it's rate until they got there procurment right. You also think asking the next of kin is a bad idea even though Austria does it, yet you seem to think that Austria is great and thats the example for all to follow.

Here is some quotes:

http://www.sehd.scot.nhs.uk/publications/odss/odss-00.htm wrote:

The most successful country in Europe as regards organ donation rates is Spain. Professor Rafael Matesanz, who masterminded the 'Spanish Model' states:

'the idea that some proposed changes in legislation could resolve the scarcity of available organs is a recurrent topic of numerous meetings. Presumed consent seems to be effective only in specific countries such as Austria where there is an old tradition, well accepted by the society, that disposal of the body is the responsibility of state or Belgium, where a significant but transient increase in organ donation was obtained after the introduction of a presumed consent law'.

http://www.sehd.scot.nhs.uk/publications/odss/odss-00.htm wrote:

98. Comparison of the rate of donation between countries has shown a general tendency towards higher rates in those countries with a presumed consent system. However, the evidence is not strong. Supporters of presumed consent often quote the organ donor rates at two centres in Belgium (Antwerp and Leuven) at the time when Antwerp retained an 'opt-in' system while Leuven adopted a new law. Leuven rates rose while those in Antwerp remained the same. However, cause and effect relationship between the new law and the organ donor rates was never proven

wrote:

Dr Simpson explained that he had been asked to report to the Health and Community Care Committee of the Scottish Parliament on the whole issue of organ donation. Through discussions with patients, the public and medical professionals, Dr Simpson concluded that to introduce legislation embodying a hard 'opt-out' bill would be culturally unacceptable at present.

wrote:

he was proposing to replace it with two new registers, one for opting in and one for opting out. it was hoped the changes could lead to a 10% improvement in the rate of relative agreement.

That last quote is quite interesting and I believe that system should be in place. If an individual hasn't made their mind up then the family would decide.

http://www.ika.ie/images/stories/ika_images/organchartbig3.jpg
Ireland has a lower waiting list than Spain.

http://www.ika.ie/images/stories/ika_images/deceaseddonor2007big.jpg
Ireland has a higher usage rate than Spain.

http://www.ika.ie/images/stories/ika_images/organchartbig4.jpg
Ireland has a higher rate of donations than Sweden which has an opt-out system.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Actually, the BBC article where you're taking most of your information from noted that while only 13Million had signed on, studies have suggested that nearly 70% of people wanted to donate their organs after death.

yeah, forgot to mention that, didn't you.

What bbc article? I took it from here: http://www.nhs.uk/News/2007/January08/Pages/Organdonationdebate.aspx

I said 15million, not 13million.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

It's hard to understand because it's irrational. Firstly, i do not care about what happens to me after i die. My organs *might* be used to help somone, however given how few people die and have viable organs that probably won't happen. But if somone can use it, go for it. if not, c'est la vie.

Second, you have no control over your organs or assets when you die. I know you think you do, but you don't.

Even if you write a will, where does your 'control' end? You leave your house to one child and they decide to sell it and spend the money on coke and hookers. It's probably not what you wanted, but you can't do anything about it and never could. Any idea of deciding what happens to you after you die is just an illusion.

Ok, you don't care what happens to you, you've said that and I get you, however there are people who do care. You still have the choice to who receives your belongings. Which is why you signed an organ donor card. you wish for it to goto the State. You do have control over who it goes to. You can donate your organs to your family/friends first should they need it, or you can donate to the State, or not. I have the choice of giving my poessions to anyone I say in my will. What happens after that, is there choice. That is no illusion.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Nobody likes that idea, however it's not likely, stop inventing boogymen to back up your selfish ideas.

It's a childish and shortsighted scenario that only a fool would posit as being anywhere close to reality.

I've said the adler heys incident, which is a case of this. Just because it hasn't happened to you yet (That you know of), doesn't mean it hasn't happened at all, anywhere. My friend from South Africas family didn't sign up to an organ donor card because they knew of a guy who didn't get treatment from an ambulance crew. They claimed they were "took a wrong turn" to get there. I thought it was ridiculous too when I first heard him say it. I told him it doesn't happen it, that it shouldn't happen, however, it does happen. I've seen cases on Wikipedia, heard stories not relating to any organs but of doctors removing ovaries from women, etc etc. Don't pretend that this stuff isn't possible. It does happen.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

You do know they don't leave you splayed open after they remove the organ, right?

You can donate organs and still have an open casket funeral if you're that vain.

They're surgeons, not butchers.

Yes, I know this. I just prefer to be buried without huge slashes across my body. However, do you think Joe Six-pack knows this? Changing to an opt-out system won't solve the problems that are already within the system.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

All of them. They're selfish, cowardly, stupid and based on nothing other than what you imagine the reality to be rather than the fact of the matter.

I've proven in the above that
"I also don't like any possibility of any doctor who seems I'm an organ donor, delibritly giving me less care for someone else's advantage."
Is true. It's not selfish, it's not cowardly, it's not stupid and it's certainly based on facts.
However, this reason "I don't care that I'm never going to save a life."
Is selfish and, in your line of thought, stupid.

I apologise if my post was all over the place. Work was crazyily busy. I must applaud your post though, it was a very good post.

*EDIT*
I have no idea why, but boards is outputting my post wierdly...

*EDIT2*
It worked for my other post, so I'm going to post up a draft and see it that works.

Burial

mark200 wrote:

I definitely would agree with there being an automatic opt-in, and then people can opt out using the current opt-in system....by ticking a box on their drivers licence or something.

There's no excuse to disagree with this, if you don't want your organs taken then opt-out. Simple as.

If your argument is that the increase would be very very small...well that means that a few extra lives will be saved by the system. Who cares how many lives? If it saves one then it's worth it.

If that was the case, then why bother asking families? Why bother letting people have their choice? Why bother effecting organ donation by bringing in laws of motorcycle safety. I mean if it'd save more people, thats the important thing right? I mean why haven't they banned cigarettes yet? Unless I'm aware of some strange health benefit smoking has.

HammerHeadTime wrote:

Are you serious?? He can live without my organs? Then he wouldn't be at the top of of a donor list.

I wouldn't be beheaded. Whats your point? It's a hypothetical question. I answered yours, accepting the unbelievable scenario, now you answer mine. And people can survive without some organs but not for that long.

HammerHeadTime wrote:

Anyway, the only choice I would have is; Do I want my organs to save someone's life or do I not? I would choose yes. It is the medical profession who choose where to send the organs.

Wrong, your choicing, not anyone else. The choice is yours. I'm telling you it won't extend the life of the criminal and you have to choose which would you rather give it to. I didn't say the medical profession would decide. I said, you'd decide.

HammerHeadTime wrote:

Ethically, I'm pretty sure it's to the person with the best chance of survival.

They both have the same chances of surviving this transplant operation.

HammerHeadTime wrote:

Where do I begin? The state prosecutor doesn't have a say in where my organs go. Nor do I.

Well come to hypothetical scenarios! I won't be beheaded, and you'll never have to make ths choice. However thats not what I'm asking you.

HammerHeadTime wrote:

The likelyhood of a murderer receiving a liver transplant so he can be killed an hour later is a bit on the stupid side, don't you think?

A criminal who is about to receive death also receives medical care. There is quite the debate on whether death-row people deserve organs or not. however, that is not the issue here. Also in your "dream" scenario for organ donation, these criminals would get organs because they'd have an organ donor card. Something I mentioned to you, and you said it is ok.

HammerHeadTime wrote:

Anyway, assuming satan was ice skating to work that day, it wouldn't matter as in my system, if you receive an organ donation, you are automatically an organ donor, so our terminally ill kiddie would still get what he needed. Although he might have to wait till we put it into a paedo for an hour.
Also, you seem to be inventing scenarios to attack rather than answer direct questions.

You invented your own scenario and you are trying to make me appear as a hypocritical for suggesting a scenario? How hypocritical of you. Also, i'm not asking what happens in your system. I'm asking this scenario.

HammerHeadTime wrote:

This is known as a logical phallacy (specifically a straw man argument)

If it were, it'd be a logical fallacy, however it's not. A logical fallacy is a jump to conclusions. For example.

1). This Death row inmate is guilty
2). Therefore all Death row inmates are guilty.

This is something I'm not doing in my arguements, however if I can't see any logical fallacies in my post, please feel free to post and tell me.

HammerHeadTime wrote:

and is debate club 101. As such it renders your argument invalid.

? Nothing has rendered my arguement invalid.

HammerHeadTime wrote:

Then sir, you are an nothing short of a hippocrite and I can no longer converse with you.

I'm genuinely at a lose as to how I'm the hypocrite. One of my reasons for not donating is that I don't know who it goes to. You have no choice on the matter. If I had the choice to give it to my daughter I would. That is not being a hypocrite.

HammerHeadTime wrote:

You would receive a donation but not make one. How typically me fein of you. It's people like you make me despair for humanity.

I'm the reason you despair for humanity? Not the greed/poverty/violence going on in the world around you? Not even the black market for organs? No. It's me. The person who doesn't wish to donate his organs to random strangers.

Kablamo! wrote:

And I was arguing with (I'm not actually exactly sure who to be honest, this thread is getting bloody messy!) ?

Agreed, I'm finding it hard remembering who and what I posted.

Kablamo! wrote:

who initially was talking about a build up of organs, a surplus.

That was me argueing in a hypothetical situation about choice. I had presumed the forced donations, with a long shelf life of organs would cut drastically the waiting times. I was wrong on the shelf-life part (Something my choice is critised for, yet I had not known about it before)

Kablamo! wrote:

By no means should people like my mother recieve an organ when there's people more needing on the list, however, if there was an organ there why wouldn't she deserve it?

Everyone should be treated the same in the health system, so your mother should be allowed get an organ should she require one. I'm saying, I'd prefer not to give my own organs to your mother. It's nothing against your mother, but I'd feel I'd be wasting my organs on her, unless she agreed to follow my rules upon receiving my organs. If someone else doesn't have a problem, then she can receive theirs.

Kablamo! wrote:

She gave blood regularly for 20 years,

How very kind of her.

Kablamo! wrote:

she might be an alcoholic but at the end of the day she's still a human being and a person, so any statements of mr.Alco/drugie are just small minded and f-in disgraceful imo.

I'm sorry for the Mr.Alco/Drugie comments, but I was just using that as a quick way to write, "Someone who has an alcoholic and/or drug problem with no signs of quitting". I didn't mean it as a personal attack on your mother.

Kablamo! wrote:

On a side note, my father is currently being assessed for the possibility of a lung transplant (non smoker, working with various paints has caused him to develop Pulmonary Fibrosis). He is 72. Would you also say that he has lived his life and should not be put on the list even though he has children under 20 and is working full time when possible?
It seems as though people think only under 18's should deserve transplants?

No. I think everyone should get transplants, which is why I argued to many people that you cannot exclude people in their made-up systems. (For example only those who donate get something back. Those that don't won't get any donation)

JC_2K3 wrote:

I definitely think it should be compulsory, or at least have an opt-out scheme.
I mean, thousands of wonderfully talented, yet disadvantaged children will never get the chance to foster their musical ability, while organs lie untouched in disused churches around the world.

I think the dual system would be the best after hearing about it. Opt-In can join in, Opt-out can opt-out and those that don't decide can leave it to the relatives to decide. It's win-win.

JC 2K3

I love the way you didn't read my post.