Live in the UK? You could be an organ donor

[Ummagumma]

This is both political and ethical, so Mods, if it needs moving, you have the power (Not quite like He-Man though..).

There may be a new 'assumption of consent' within the UK, whereby everyone is assumed to give consent to organ donorship. Is this a good thing, allowing the medical profession to save lives of others using whatever means they can - bypassing the apathy of many people not giving explicit consent for organ use in others? Is it a step to far, an assumption of government ownership of our very bodies to do with as they please?

Is this a good thing?

Link

[boofhead]

The government pretty much owns your body anyway, as they will decide whether to have you butchered on a slab after your death if they choose to do so, and you can't do anything about it.

Even if you wrote in your will "no autopsy, even if I am murdered", they would still carve you up and desecrate your corpse.

I think it stinks.

*Regarding organ donation - I don't see it that bad, as a person is still given the option to opt out (unlike autopsies).

[Bovril]

I'd love to see the gap filled by people actually volunteering to be donors, but as this is unlikely to happen, the question of the presumption of consent is brought starkly home to us.

To be honest, I don't think most people care that much about their organs following death, so I'm ovwerwhelmingly tempted to say yes to the presumption of consent so long as the change is law is publicised widely enough that all those who don't want to donate can opt out of the scheme.

[Ummagumma]

Even if you wrote in your will "no autopsy, even if I am murdered", they would still carve you up and desecrate your corpse.

I think it stinks.

Much like land ownership, but if they think there is a body buried there they will mow straight through your loved begonias.. I don't see the similarity between evidence and general medical....

*Regarding organ donation - I don't see it that bad, as a person is still given the option to opt out (unlike autopsies).

Autopsies are a requirement of investigation, surely?

To be honest, I don't think most people care that much about their organs following death, so I'm ovwerwhelmingly tempted to say yes to the presumption of consent so long as the change is law is publicised widely enough that all those who don't want to donate can opt out of the scheme.

I'll try to not bring too much of my thoughts into this, but I carry a donor card anyway and think carrying one is the right thing to do - but that is my choice.
The assumption of consent is a different matter, and could be used as a precedent for many other things that should require full consent.

[boofhead]

Autopsies are a requirement of investigation, surely?

But you see, I don't want to be butchered post-mortem. For any reason. Once I'm dead I don't care if a murderer gets away with it. I think I should own my body even after death, and completely. Somebody else's "investigative requirements" are none of my concern, whereas the sanctity and dignity of my corpse is.

Autopsies are disgusting defilements.

But anyway, I'm slightly off-topic, so I'll STFU now

[Ummagumma]

I think I should own my body even after death, and completely.

It may be for a slightly off topic example, but that sentence is, I suppose, the crux of the issue. There will be an 'ownership' of your carcass, for medical people to redistribute as they see fit. Opt-in, or opt-out? Is this rational pragmatic usage, or a step too far?

[Sleeper]

It may be for a slightly off topic example, but that sentence is, I suppose, the crux of the issue. There will be an 'ownership' of your carcass, for medical people to redistribute as they see fit. Opt-in, or opt-out? Is this rational pragmatic usage, or a step too far?

I can not answer your question. It is a fine example of socialism.

[Dayman]

Autopsies are disgusting defilements.

Defiling what? A lump of dead matter isn't sacred. You're not alive, and if you're a Christian or another religion that believes in souls, your soul has departed long before that scalpel cuts into you.

And you think autopsies are bad? Embalming is worse. They suck out the entire contents of your chest cavity, replace your blood with embalming fluid, sew your lips together, etc.

[Sleeper]

For all of England's "forward" thinking on many issues; Britain is the blueprint from which the West has and will continue to develop Big Brother tendencies. Government that decides what is best for its people, even when it is what's "best" is government worth tearing down.

In America people ***** about the Patriot, while most continental European countries have always had such powers.

[Sleeper]

Dead men have no dignity. Tell the worms your concerns about sanctity

[Ummagumma]

Hahaha, no worries.

[Earl of Rochester]

As long as there is an opt-out this in my opinion is a great policy. I really can't see the argument for the other side. It saves lives and if you don't like it, you can say no.

[LoZz]

well i am an organ donor, so i dont care anyway. to be honest i think its a good idea, i dont understand why society is so selfish. i can understand in the heat of the moument a relitive may not want a kid to be "cut up" but they could be helping someone elses child.

[Sleeper]

Slippery slope. What about some rich kid with a rare blood type who needs a transplant and has a father willing to do what is necessary to save his child?

Information stores are rarely used for good deeds.

[mongoose]

Honestly, I think that it should be mandatory. There is no reason why a useful thing like an organ should be eaten by worms instead of used by another person.

[LoZz]

Slippery slope. What about some rich kid with a rare blood type who needs a transplant and has a father willing to do what is necessary to save his child?

Information stores are rarely used for good deeds.

because we will see a massive rise in that

[Ummagumma]

Honestly, I think that it should be mandatory. There is no reason why a useful thing like an organ should be eaten by worms instead of used by another person.

Very pragmatic. Should that be a result of altruism and education or by assumption..

Slippery slope. What about some rich kid with a rare blood type who needs a transplant and has a father willing to do what is necessary to save his child?

He would travel the world searching for a treatment. He's rich.

Information stores are rarely used for good deeds.

Random. Paranoid, but nicely random.

[GrnEyedDvl]

Glad this is the UK not the US. People should opt in, not opt out.

[LoZz]

Glad this is the UK not the US. People should opt in, not opt out.

yer damn us for assumeing people want to do the right thing for others when they die!

[Syron]

It's a disgusting idea. Besides, considering recent **** ups over government held data is anyone really convinced that in an opt-out system no mistakes will be made?

yer damn us for assumeing people want to do the right thing for others when they die!

It shouldn't be the governments right to assume any citizens choice! There is no such thing as a right to an organ transplant, it is a gift.