Presumed Consent??? How undemocratic!

[Viking Prince]

Donor 'opt-out' proposal rejected

excerpt:

A panel of experts has rejected plans to presume everyone consents to being an organ donor unless they opt out.

The UK Organ Donation Taskforce - a government advisory committee - said there was little evidence the move would increase availability of organs.

The prime minister and the chief medical officer are among supporters of a "presumed consent" system.

They believe it would tackle the chronic shortage of organs and save thousands of lives.

Only expediency can be the poor excuse for such rotten logic. There can be no justification. This is not like a driver's license and thus a presumed consent by law to be tested for booze when pulled over by the police. At least there is a link and a process. To simply be born and suffer a death should never be a presumption for approval for any government sanctioned action unless you also wish the government complete authority to simply take your life when it suits them.

Edit -- the question of whether this increases organ "donors" is incredibly not related to this point.

[Markas]

Donor 'opt-out' proposal rejected

excerpt:


Only expediency can be the poor excuse for such rotten logic. There can be no justification. This is not like a driver's license and thus a presumed consent by law to be tested for booze when pulled over by the police. At least there is a link and a process. To simply be born and suffer a death should never be a presumption for approval for any government sanctioned action unless you also wish the government complete authority to simply take your life when it suits them.

Edit -- the question of whether this increases organ "donors" is incredibly not related to this point.

It's a desperate situation that has resulted in an ill-thought out strategy. There is a shortage of available organs and not enough donors and lives are being lost needlessly. Personally I think unless you have religious convictions (though a catholic country like spain has a very high donors) there's no real reason why you shouldn't donate after you snuff it. I've spoken to several people why they won't do it and they said they 'didn't like the idea of it'. ing muppets.

Sorry Viking Prince.

Assuming donation isn't the answer of course, we simply need more information and a better campaign as Liz Buggins alluded to.

[Viking Prince]

I agree that better information can lead to a higher informed consent and donor rate. The very fact that a person said 'didn't like the idea of it' is good enough for me to require the government to keep their hands off.

btw -- I and my family have organ donar authorizations.

I just do not want any authority to be able to presume my consent on anything. Period.

[Markas]

I agree that better information can lead to a higher informed consent and donor rate. The very fact that a person said 'didn't like the idea of it' is good enough for me to require the government to keep their hands off.

btw -- I and my family have organ donar authorizations.

I just do not want any authority to be able to presume my consent on anything. Period.

Agreed. Presumed consent won't help much at all and can only damage the cause of organ donation.

[boofhead]

The average autopsy is enough of an "invasion" of a dead body that I don't see how organ donation should be a moral problem if autopsies are allowed in the first place. Bits are ripped out anyway, and seemingly indecent things are done to dead people via autopsy, and some bits are generally stored elsewhere anyway.

If forced organ donations are applied, I'd agree with it. Because autopsies are forced. What's the difference? A person has no choice saying "I don't want an autopsy when I'm dead." The law will have him horrendously butchered anyway if it deems fit. So they may as well 'quarter' him while they're at it.

[Dunecat]

Doctors do not sacrifice a life to help another, I don't see much government involvement in that.

Unless of course it is common for doctors to murder patients (which it very well may be) then I would be against organ donation if it dooms my own life.

[Henry of Grosmont]

Doctors do not sacrifice a life to help another, I don't see much government involvement in that.

Really?

Unless of course it is common for doctors to murder patients (which it very well may be) then I would be against organ donation if it dooms my own life.

Well...

This is not the point though. How can anyone (the government, especially) presume that you want to donate your organs, unless you take yourself off the list. For the sake of example: Let's say your religion requires your body to enter the afterlife "intact". And you not just forgot to withdraw your name, you may not even know that.

[Markas]

Really?

Well...

This is not the point though. How can anyone (the government, especially) presume that you want to donate your organs, unless you take yourself off the list. For the sake of example: Let's say your religion requires your body to enter the afterlife "intact". And you not just forgot to withdraw your name, you may not even know that.

The Catholicexchange and Lifesitenews!

Holy unbiased websites, Batman!

[Henry of Grosmont]

The Catholicexchange and Lifesitenews!

Holy unbiased websites, Batman!

I'm fully aware of them being "unbiased". This is not the point I was trying to make, Robin.

[Viking Prince]

The average autopsy is enough of an "invasion" of a dead body that I don't see how organ donation should be a moral problem if autopsies are allowed in the first place. Bits are ripped out anyway, and seemingly indecent things are done to dead people via autopsy, and some bits are generally stored elsewhere anyway.

If forced organ donations are applied, I'd agree with it. Because autopsies are forced. What's the difference? A person has no choice saying "I don't want an autopsy when I'm dead." The law will have him horrendously butchered anyway if it deems fit. So they may as well 'quarter' him while they're at it.

There is no presumed right by the government for an autopsy. There needs to be a court order and due process. There also needs to be a reason for the autopsy and in many cases it still does not proceed without family consent.

I do however agree with the general nature of the need for autopsies and why many do occur without such consent. They are an exception and not a general rule.

[Musthavename]

Personally I think unless you have religious convictions (though a catholic country like spain has a very high donors) there's no real reason why you shouldn't donate after you snuff it.

I'm pretty sure Spain does have presumed consent. Not sure if you know that or not, so i'll just state it for the purposes of this thread.

I don't see an issue with it. If you're that annoyed at it, opt out. What would be undemocratic is if they said "you HAVE to donate organs, and you have no choice". If its going to save lives, why not?

[Cluny the Scourge]

Donor 'opt-out' proposal rejected

excerpt:


Only expediency can be the poor excuse for such rotten logic. There can be no justification. This is not like a driver's license and thus a presumed consent by law to be tested for booze when pulled over by the police. At least there is a link and a process. To simply be born and suffer a death should never be a presumption for approval for any government sanctioned action unless you also wish the government complete authority to simply take your life when it suits them.

Edit -- the question of whether this increases organ "donors" is incredibly not related to this point.

You are utterly mistaken - the question of whether it increases organs available for transplant is the whole, only and absolute point. The objections of the anti-presumed consent lobby are ideological in nature - they think that presumed consent is a matter of personal autonomy against the state and the fear of a socialistic intrusion on private property. And for them, this ideology is more important than the simple practical question of how many people are suffering or dying. To prefer ideology over compassion is revolting and a symptom of a diseased mind.

And how quickly do you suppose these people will change their minds once it is one of THEIR loved ones who find themselves on a long waiting-list for transplant, in unceasing misery, while down the hall of the hospital perfectly good organs that could ease their suffering are being thrown away not because their former-owner objected to transplant but because he or she simply never thought about it.

I will tell you how quickly. Instantly. They are disgusting hypocrites.

If you "don't like the idea of" your organs being used for transplant after you die, then indicate that you don't want your organs to so be used. It's one phone-call, or filling in one form. The colossal selfishness of people who reject even having to do this one simple administrative procedure so that lives can be saved, and while THEY will during their own life quite happily be the recipient of whatever organs are going should they come to need them, is disgusting.

In fact it is wicked.

And I am very glad to read that Brown has decided to go ahead with this humanitarian and entirely sensible legislation whatever the committee has stated.

[Nietzsche]

You are utterly mistaken - the question of whether it increases organs available for transplant is the whole, only and absolute point. The objections of the anti-presumed consent lobby are ideological in nature - they think that presumed consent is a matter of personal autonomy against the state and the fear of a socialistic intrusion on private property. And for them, this ideology is more important than the simple practical question of how many people are suffering or dying. To prefer ideology over compassion is revolting and a symptom of a diseased mind.

And how quickly do you suppose these people will change their minds once it is one of THEIR loved ones who find themselves on a long waiting-list for transplant, in unceasing misery, while down the hall of the hospital perfectly good organs that could ease their suffering are being thrown away not because their former-owner objected to transplant but because he or she simply never thought about it.

I will tell you how quickly. Instantly. They are disgusting hypocrites.

If you "don't like the idea of" your organs being used for transplant after you die, then indicate that you don't want your organs to so be used. It's one phone-call, or filling in one form. The colossal selfishness of people who reject even having to do this one simple administrative procedure so that lives can be saved, and while THEY will during their own life quite happily be the recipient of whatever organs are going should they come to need them, is disgusting.

In fact it is wicked.

And I am very glad to read that Brown has decided to go ahead with this humanitarian and entirely sensible legislation whatever the committee has stated.

I sympathize with your moral outrage. However, I don't believe personal ownership of one's body ends with death of the person. That is why there are wills and lawyers.

To default any personal property to the state without explicit consent is wrong. Heirs should have a choice in the matter. There MUST be explicit consent indicating the state has right to a person's property. We must give people that basic protection. Without explicit consent, the state can just begin taking whatever it likes whenever there isn't any specific legal document preventing them from doing so. You must be able to see the importance of that.

If a person dies without a will indicating their wishes, the CORRECT way to handle the proceeding is to default to a family member. Should there be no family members available (a highly unlikely circumstance), then it should default to the person's physician, lawyer, or even their priest/pastor if any. Only after all other avenues have been exhausted should a state have the right to seize any citizens property.

You cannot imminent domain a person's organs. States with universal health care already pondering the legality/practicality of euthanasia, to further give them control over a person's body would be outrageous. Let doctors worry about the state of our health and organ donation. Let individuals decide what to do with their bodies. Let organ donation be a social awareness movement not a government mandate. I think it would better for all.

Finally, despite what you believe, there are cultural groups that believe defiling a body is sacrilege. A state must always secure those rights not arbitrarily take them away. I shudder to think what could happen if there were a mistake (like that never happens with the state) and a body is chopped up and shipped off before a family member shows up to claim it. Horrific.

[Каие]

To simply be born and suffer a death should never be a presumption for approval.

Are you talking about a child?

[Erik]

We currently have the exact same discussion in my country, but I have the solution:
Put donor info on driver's licenses, passports and personal ID's.

Pretty much every adult has at least one of these documents.
Whenever they renew one of them they can be presented with a simple question: "Organ donor [yes/no]".
Since they will probably have to fill out all kinds of info anyways, adding one extra question is hardly going to have any impact on bureaucracy.
One added benefit: nobody will have to carry a separate donor card in their wallet.

To avoid having to replace existing documents whenever somebody changes their mind, they can put a personal donor ID on the actual drivers licenses/passports/id's, which points to a central database with the latest donor info (this can also include additional information like blood type).

For children (who are valuable donors, but don't always own passports or id's) they could ask the donor question whenever they sign up at a school.

There.
Problem solved.
Why hasn't anyone else thought of this?

[Farnan]

We currently have the exact same discussion in my country, but I have the solution:
Put donor info on driver's licenses, passports and personal ID's.

Pretty much every adult has at least one of these documents.
Whenever they renew one of them they can be presented with a simple question: "Organ donor [yes/no]".
Since they will probably have to fill out all kinds of info anyways, adding one extra question is hardly going to have any impact on bureaucracy.
One added benefit: nobody will have to carry a separate donor card in their wallet.

To avoid having to replace existing documents whenever somebody changes their mind, they can put a personal donor ID on the actual drivers licenses/passports/id's, which points to a central database with the latest donor info (this can also include additional information like blood type).

For children (who are valuable donors, but don't always own passports or id's) they could ask the donor question whenever they sign up at a school.

There.
Problem solved.
Why hasn't anyone else thought of this?

We do this in the US with Driver's Licenses.

[Stalins Ghost]

Meh, I'm not using them, someone else might as well. That's the basic logic behind my thoughts on the matter.

When I die, they can take it all if they really want.

[Garrigan]

I'm prepared to give my organs when I die. But I still dont agree with this. It should be about volunteering, not just signing everyone up and having loads of people not bothering to un-sign themselves. Which I think they have a perfect right to do, it is, after all, their body.

[the Black Prince]

what annoys me most is that a government sponsored expert review says that presumed consent is wrong and won't work, but the government has said we might do it anyway!

Whats the point of wasting our money consulting the epxerts if you're just going to ignore them when they don't say what you want them to?

Oh wait, i forgot, this is labour...

[thatguy]

I say go for it, there really isnt a reason not to donate.
This isnt acient egypt, alright we're dead we dont NEED them anymore, they'd just rot in the ground anyway so atleast this way, you can save LIVES!