Organ donation: opt in or opt out?

[NovaKart]

The afterlife is a distinct possibility, don't discount it. Not only is it better to try and preserve the body in the best state possible, organs intact. I also plan to ask my surviving relatives to bring offerings of food and incense to my tomb periodically. On certain times of the year they will also burn spirit money for my use in the afterlife.

You will regret it when your soul arrives in the afterlife without organs, protective amulets and a well thumbed copy of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. I suppose none of you even plan to hire professional mourners for your funeral.

Miles Teg has the right idea, a Christian afterlife is a distinct possiblity. I'll have to look into that as an alternative. It sounds less expensive. I would think the artist formerly known as gekko with that weird symbol for an avatar might at least get what I'm talking about.

 

[MobBoss]

I have to disagree on the morality of it all. I think it's very clear that if you're willing to deny people vital organs to spare yourself a few moments of the creeps, you're obviously acting in an immoral fashion. Same thing with not educating yourself as to the pros and cons of organ donation before insisting on checking that little [No] box.

Yeah, but to me, thats like saying 'everyone is immoral because everyone could be doing more to help others', no matter what.

Its like the diet coke of immorality. I mean if we have gotten to a point where its immoral to actually desire to keep your body 'as is' upon death, then what does that say about our society?

Is it likewise immoral to be buried in a lead-lined coffin instead of being ground up and used as fertilzer to help feed the world? Because thats about the same premise of calling it immoral to not donate organs for the 'greater good'.

Despite your protestations otherwise, I still cant call the decision to not donate organs immoral. I guess I am just not judgemental enough.

 

[Zelig]

Is it likewise immoral to be buried in a lead-lined coffin instead of being ground up and used as fertilzer to help feed the world? Because thats about the same premise of calling it immoral to not donate organs for the 'greater good'.

Well, I'd argue one should at least use a biodegradable coffin instead of one which is going to leech lead into the ground.

 

[GhostWriter16]

But their family may care, as I previously pointed out.

And as your a christian, and supposedly believe in life after death, how do you know 'he would no longer care'? They just might you know....



How do you know?

Well, in heaven there will be no tears and everyone will be perfect. Can we at least agree the best option would be to donate your organs even if its not the only morally correct option?

They won't be upset about it.

The afterlife is a distinct possibility, don't discount it. Not only is it better to try and preserve the body in the best state possible, organs intact. I also plan to ask my surviving relatives to bring offerings of food and incense to my tomb periodically. On certain times of the year they will also burn spirit money for my use in the afterlife.

You will regret it when your soul arrives in the afterlife without organs, protective amulets and a well thumbed copy of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. I suppose none of you even plan to hire professional mourners for your funeral.

Miles Teg has the right idea, a Christian afterlife is a distinct possiblity. I'll have to look into that as an alternative. It sounds less expensive. I would think the artist formerly known as gekko with that weird symbol for an avatar might at least get what I'm talking about.

 

[MobBoss]

Well, in heaven there will be no tears and everyone will be perfect. Can we at least agree the best option would be to donate your organs even if its not the only morally correct option?

I can only speak for what the best is for me. Not for others.

They won't be upset about it.

They could still care and not be upset about it. They very well might (or might not). Who knows?

Well, I'd argue one should at least use a biodegradable coffin instead of one which is going to leech lead into the ground.

Get buried either standing up or on your head while your at it to save space...

 

[GhostWriter16]

Get buried either standing up or on your head while your at it to save space...

Those two things are not comparable.

Letting someone die because you want a nice looking dead body is almost as morally wrong as killing someone.

Its different if you have a religious reason, but you should have to do the same thing pacifist religious groups have to do to avoid the draft.

 

[Miles Teg]

Its like the diet coke of immorality. I mean if we have gotten to a point where its immoral to actually desire to keep your body 'as is' upon death, then what does that say about our society?

I agree that, in general, the whole "you could be doing more for the world" type of finger-wagging isn't really persuasive. However, organ donation would seem to be a special case, since:

1. The consequences are very clear. When you give up your kidney, heart, or liver, you've probably just saved someone's life. Several people's lives, in point of fact. And when someone takes your corneas, or one of your hands, the improvement you've made to their life is pretty clear.

2. The inconvenience is completely minimal. Unless you have religious objections, the only thing really stopping anyone is the "ick" factor. Maybe I'm judgmental, but refusing people life-saving transplants because it creeps you out goes down as firmly immoral in my book.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I agree that, in general, the whole "you could be doing more for the world" type of finger-wagging isn't really persuasive. However, organ donation would seem to be a special case, since:

I already agreed so I'll back you up.

1. The consequences are very clear. When you give up your kidney, heart, or liver, you've probably just saved someone's life. Several people's lives, in point of fact. And when someone takes your corneas, or one of your hands, the improvement you've made to their life is pretty clear.

Yes, however if there was a cost to you I'd understand why not.

2. The inconvenience is completely minimal. Unless you have religious objections, the only thing really stopping anyone is the "ick" factor. Maybe I'm judgmental, but refusing people life-saving transplants because it creeps you out goes down as firmly immoral in my book.

I agree, though it is different if your religion gets in the way.

 

[GenMarshall]

As I said previously, you don't own it once you've died.

I've said it once and I'll say it again, I still do own my body once I've died!. The government has no god given right to decide to harvest my body after I kick the bucket. The government has no bussiness to muck with an individuals liberty and body.

Aperenty certan people aren't statisfied and rather force people to be organ doners by default.

Also, ever heard of a thing called a will? I guess not if you asume that someone "loses" ownership of there body after passing on .

I personally think that's a very selfish decision, but with an opt-out system you would still be able to make that choice. No liberty is taken from you in an opt-out system.

The same argument can be said for an opting-out system is selfish that does not let the individual opt-out if he or she is not made aware of it and forced to be a doner against there will. Especially if they told there friends and family that they don't want to be organ donars.

I don't give a damn that my choice of not being an organ doner is selfish. It's my decision to do so. I am very much against and uncomfortable having my body harvested after passing on. I'm sure I am not alone in this decision. I am glad that I live in the United States that has the freedom and liberties of an opt-in system instead of the authoritarian and socialist opt-out system.

The government would only make the decision when the deceased hadn't previously decided themselves. Note that both systems require the government to decide on behalf of unregistered deceased.

The government has no right to decide on behalf of the deceased. The only thing the government would do is check if the individual has opted-in, then leave the body alone if the individual chose NOT to be an organ donar.

I agree with MobBoss's statements he posted so far. I am not comfortable having my body parts in someone else's body.

@Domination3000 - Quit assuming that I am a diehard liberal socialist. You did not liked it when you were refered to as a fascist.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I've said it once and I'll say it again, I still do own my body once I've died!. The government has no god given right to decide to harvest my body after I kick the bucket. The government has no bussiness to muck with an individuals liberty and body.

Then they also don't have the right to steal from the rich to support your welfare.

Aperenty certan people aren't statisfied and rather force people to be organ doners by default.

Nobody is talking about doing that except arguably me (Still not really.) He is not saying that.

Also, ever heard of a thing called a will? I guess not if you asume that someone "loses" ownership of there body after passing on .

I don't care a whit about your will once you are dead!!!

The same argument can be said for an opting-out system is selfish that does not let the individual opt-out if he or she is not made aware of it and forced to be a doner against there will. Especially if they told there friends and family that they don't want to be organ donars.

Then check the stupid opt-out box and don't even worry about it. However, I don't even think it should be that easy.

I don't give a damn that my choice of not being an organ doner is selfish. It's my decision to do so. I am very much against and uncomfortable having my body harvested after passing on. I'm sure I am not alone in this decision. I am glad that I live in the United States that has the freedom and liberties of an opt-in system instead of the authoritarian and socialist opt-out system.

Ummm... Since you are a socialist and I'm pretty sure your an authoritarian....

Also, again, I don't care a whit about your rights once you are dead. Once you are dead you don't matter to anyone on Earth, you are in a new life. Also, now that I know its not your religion that's causing you to not want to save a life I don't know what to say.

I saw someone's life saved because of an organ-donation. He died later, but people like this all the time live years and years after. And because of selfishness like this they are left to die. '

The government has no right to decide on behalf of the deceased. The only thing the government would do is check if the individual has opted-in, then leave the body alone if the individual chose NOT to be an organ donar.

You are DEAD in this case and have no rights..

I agree with MobBoss's statements he posted so far. I am not comfortable having my body parts in someone else's body.

I don't care, you are dead, therefore you will not feel discomfort.

@Domination3000 - Quit assuming that I am a diehard liberal socialist.

Well, you support socialism, yet a dead body which has no use to anyone else, heaven forbid!

 

[Lillefix]

The same argument can be said for an opting-out system is selfish that does not let the individual opt-out if he or she is not made aware of it and forced to be a doner against there will.

There's not much will in a dead brain. And if you told you're friends about it, then you were aware of it.

 

[cubsfan6506]

Opt out, but attach some kind of massive death tax attached to opting out

 

[GenMarshall]

Then they also don't have the right to steal from the rich to support your welfare.

First of all, I don't enjoy being on unemployment. Second, I do have the right to unemployment as long as I am searching for a job. Third, unemployment has a limited timespan.

I do find it very offensive that you assume that I enjoy being on unemployment and "stealing" from the rich.

I don't care a whit about your will once you are dead!!!

I'm sure lawyers as well as my friends and family would care

Then check the stupid opt-out box and don't even worry about it.

Do I need to remind you that I live in the United States? I don't NEED to check a box anywhere. I'm sure others have made it clear with the opt-in system that you check the box.

However, I don't even think it should be that easy.

Yet you claim to be libertarian yet still want a whole lot of red tape . Sorry, many will disagree with you on that.

Ummm... Since you are a socialist and I'm pretty sure your an authoritarian....

Fullstop! I am neather a socialist nor an authoritarian. I find it offensive that you asume that.

Also, again, I don't care a whit about your rights once you are dead. Once you are dead you don't matter to anyone on Earth, you are in a new life.

Lawers, friends, and relatives of the deceased will care and they will most certanly disagree with you.

Also, now that I know its not your religion that's causing you to not want to save a life I don't know what to say.

choices don't need to be a religious choice, Atheists and non-religious also chose to not be organ donors. The only thing we want is our choices respected, not ridiculed and place through a guilt trip.

I saw someone's life saved because of an organ-donation. He died later, but people like this all the time live years and years after. And because of selfishness like this they are left to die.

Alright, enough with the guilt trip dramatics, it's not going to help your case. First of all, not donating organs is not a selfish act. Second of all, are you aware that not every body part is closely comparable to another person? Organs are not like electronic components where you just willy nilly remove and replace a part. Not with human organs since the part itself has to closely match the biology of the recipient, even then they have to take drugs to endure the forgien organ is not rejected. I'm sure someone who is well versed in this can better explain the biology of organ donation.

You are DEAD in this case and have no rights..

Wrong. Again, lawyers, friends, and relatives will highly disagree with you.

I don't care, you are dead, therefore you will not feel discomfort.

Well you've just proven yourself selfish and not respecting the chooses of others. I'm sure relatives and friends of the deceased will be upset if they learned that his or her body was harvested against the deceased's concent and will go to great lengths for legal action.

Well, you support socialism, yet a dead body which has no use to anyone else, heaven forbid!

Once again, I don't support Socialism. Get it through your head for god sakes!

 

[.Shane.]

Yeah, it should be opt-in, but made really easy, as already stated. I like the US system. On every driver's license there is a an area that you can sign. If you sign it, you are an organ donor in case of your death.

I don't think this is true. I believe its state by state.

I agree that, in general, the whole "you could be doing more for the world" type of finger-wagging isn't really persuasive. However, organ donation would seem to be a special case, since:

1. The consequences are very clear. When you give up your kidney, heart, or liver, you've probably just saved someone's life. Several people's lives, in point of fact. And when someone takes your corneas, or one of your hands, the improvement you've made to their life is pretty clear.

2. The inconvenience is completely minimal. Unless you have religious objections, the only thing really stopping anyone is the "ick" factor. Maybe I'm judgmental, but refusing people life-saving transplants because it creeps you out goes down as firmly immoral in my book.

Well said.

I'm "Opt out" as well.

How about this? You are only eligible to receive a donated organ if you have signed up to donate yourself?

My driver's license has me marked for organ donation, but I would love it if I could make sure my organs only went to someone else willing to do so.

 

[Ulyaoth]

Fullstop! I am neather a socialist nor an authoritarian. I find it offensive that you asume that.

Once again, I don't support Socialism. Get it through your head for god sakes!

Why? What's wrong with socialism?

 

[GenMarshall]

Why? What's wrong with socialism?

To the conservatives:

Socialism = Communism = BAD!

(I'm not equating to that, but that's the general idea I've gotten from it)

If you wish to discuss about that, please take it to another thread. I'd hate to see this thread get derailed by Dom3k's strawmen.

 

[Miles Teg]

Well said.

I'm "Opt out" as well.

For the record, I am a little uneasy with the opt-out system. Consent is, in my view, quiet possibly the biggest issue in medical ethics. That doesn't mean that I don't have strongly negative views of people who don't agree to donate their organs.

 

[.Shane.]

For the record, I am a little uneasy with the opt-out system. Consent is, in my view, quiet possibly the biggest issue in medical ethics. That doesn't mean that I don't have strongly negative views of people who don't agree to donate their organs.

Well, like I said, let me "opt out" of giving my organs to anyone who has opted out.

 

[MobBoss]

Letting someone die because you want a nice looking dead body is almost as morally wrong as killing someone.

But thats the point. Your're not 'letting someone die'. Thats just misplaced guilt being thrown around for no real reason.

And as to it being the equal morally of killing someone....that is just flat out ridiculous. Killing someone is a capital offense....marking 'no' on the organ donor card....isnt.

Its different if you have a religious reason, but you should have to do the same thing pacifist religious groups have to do to avoid the draft.

I dont think the draft is a good analogy to be honest. Defense of the nation isnt really comparable with volunteer organ donation.

I agree that, in general, the whole "you could be doing more for the world" type of finger-wagging isn't really persuasive. However, organ donation would seem to be a special case, since:

1. The consequences are very clear. When you give up your kidney, heart, or liver, you've probably just saved someone's life. Several people's lives, in point of fact.

That would be 'possibly' not 'probably', and thats even assuming that is all goes perfect in a situation in which there is no room for error.

And when someone takes your corneas, or one of your hands, the improvement you've made to their life is pretty clear.

A hand is an organ? What is this...Frankenstein?

I dont discount the possibilities, but there being simply no gurantee of anything is why this isnt a morality issue at all since what happens or what does not happen is absolutely out of your hands.......your're dead remember.

2. The inconvenience is completely minimal.

I think thats up to the individual and their family to decide.

Unless you have religious objections, the only thing really stopping anyone is the "ick" factor. Maybe I'm judgmental, but refusing people life-saving transplants because it creeps you out goes down as firmly immoral in my book.

If someoene, say a total stranger, came up to you and demanded your kidney would you give it to them? Would you be immoral in refusing them your kidney?

 

[Miles Teg]

That would be 'possibly' not 'probably', and thats even assuming that is all goes perfect in a situation in which there is no room for error.

No, it's probably. Since the demand for organs far outstrips the need, it's pretty sure thing that if your internal organs are viable when they're harvested, they'll go where they're needed, and transplant success rates are pretty good these days. "Probably" accounts for the slip-ups well enough.

A hand is an organ? What is this...Frankenstein?

I just through that in there because I do believe we have had post-mortem hand transplants.

If someoene, say a total stranger, came up to you and demanded your kidney would you give it to them? Would you be immoral in refusing them your kidney?

Kidneys are kind of non-essential, so I'd actually consider it. The problem here is the false equivalence you're trying to set up. Giving your body parts after you're dead (or brain dead) isn't as inconvenient as doing so while you're alive and kicking. That should be kind of obvious.

And frankly Mobby, not being an organ donor is probably more likely to get someone killed than skipping the draft is.