Organ Donations

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

Two things:

1. Why not make them compulsory? There's always the possibility of families being pressured to cut off life support to a loved one just a little too soon though.
2. If not, why not give donors priority over others when there's (and there always is one) an organ shortage?

Some might say that's unfair. That's too ing bad. It's unfair that people can take without giving back. I can't imagine a reasonable argument against giving donors priority.

[In3x]

Two things:

1. Why not make them compulsory? There's always the possibility of families being pressured to cut off life support to a loved one just a little too soon though.
2. If not, why not give donors priority over others when there's (and there always is one) an organ shortage?

Some might say that's unfair. That's too ing bad. It's unfair that people can take without giving back. I can't imagine a reasonable argument against giving donors priority.

I can't see what is wrong with either of your proposals, but I'm sure someone will be along shortly to enlighten us.

[Their Law]

Two things:

1. Why not make them compulsory? There's always the possibility of families being pressured to cut off life support to a loved one just a little too soon though.

Freedom of choice, some people either dislike the idea of being chopped up for parts or their belief system forbids it.

If not, why not give donors priority over others when there's (and there always is one) an organ shortage?

Not sure what you mean here, do you propose that organ donors should get priority when they need an organ because of their willingness to donate down the line? Regardless it's a poor criteria as the need of the patient should be the deciding factor.

Some might say that's unfair.

Because it is.

That's too ing bad. It's unfair that people can take without giving back. I can't imagine a reasonable argument against giving donors priority.

Organ Donor, not organ exchange, it is a donation not a investment. Medical priority should always overrule over personal opinion. At the end of the day the organ should go to the person who needs it the most. Not the person who's likely to reciprocate the favour.

[In3x]

Freedom of choice, some people either dislike the idea of being chopped up for parts or their belief system forbids it.

They would rather hold a belief than save someone's life, great. If you don't want your organs going to someone after you die because of your religious beliefs, what right have you to expect to receive an organ transplant when you are alive?

Not sure what you mean here, do you propose that organ donors should get priority when they need an organ because of their willingness to donate down the line? Regardless it's a poor criteria as the need of the patient should be the deciding factor.

It's not a poor criteria if it's the final criteria to separate people. Two people, same disease, same stage, same medical need, give it to the guy who has a organ donor card.

Organ Donor, not organ exchange, it is a donation not a investment. Medical priority should always overrule over personal opinion. At the end of the day the organ should go to the person who needs it the most. Not the person who's likely to reciprocate the favour.

It can be both, as long as the medical priority actually takes priority.

[Their Law]

They would rather hold a belief than save someone's life, great. If you don't want your organs going to someone after you die because of your religious beliefs, what right have you to expect to receive an organ transplant when you are alive?

What right do you have to decide on who lives and dies according to their beliefs? You are imposing you set of values across the spectrum, some religions believe that the mutilation of the body post death will harm the soul or doom the soul to earth. Why not prioritise individuals with medical degrees for transplant, as they are more likely to repay the favour by working within the industry?

The health profession is their to save lives as and when they come into it's remit, not to pick and chose according to which might be materially the most beneficial. At the end of the day organ transplants should be the decision of the recipient and donor (if alive) if it's approved.

It's not a poor criteria if it's the final criteria to separate people. Two people, same disease, same stage, same medical need, give it to the guy who has a organ donor card.

Very well you can have that, so long as every other criteria, such as wieght, age, previous medical history, lifestyle choice etc is exhausted you can use organ donor cards to differentiate. Well done, you solved an event that likely happens every one in a billion.

It can be both, as long as the medical priority actually takes priority.

That's not what Philip was implying, he was implying that in the event of an organ shortage the organ should go to the individual likely to give it back. He did not qualify it with equal medical need. As it is, it strongly implies donorship being the deciding factor in this event over and above medical need.

[In3x]

What right do you have to decide on who lives and dies according to their beliefs? You are imposing you set of values across the spectrum, some religions believe that the mutilation of the body post death will harm the soul or doom the soul to earth.

I don't think I am being unfair at all, one group, the people willing to be organ donors are willing to save the life of another with their death the others are preventing someone from having the chance at life because of some arbitrary and meaningless religious reasoning. If they truly believe that mutilation of the body post death harms the sole why would they be willing to let others destroy their own souls to donate organs to them? I can only hope that as the religious have changed their feelings on so many issues this one will soon be looked at in the same way we view people who believe cameras steal their souls.

Why not prioritise individuals with medical degrees for transplant, as they are more likely to repay the favour by working within the industry?

This doesn't work, it's not the same as what I was suggesting.

Very well you can have that, so long as every other criteria, such as wieght, age, previous medical history, lifestyle choice etc is exhausted you can use organ donor cards to differentiate. Well done, you solved an event that likely happens every one in a billion.

Nice tone, what was the point in that exactly?

If I neglected to answer any of your points that was because I agree with you on them.

[Their Law]

I don't think I am being unfair at all, one group, the people willing to be organ donors are willing to save the life of another with their death the others are preventing someone from having the chance at life because of some arbitrary and meaningless religious reasoning.

You think it's arbitrary and meaningless, to allot of people they are a real and vital part of life.

If they truly believe that mutilation of the body post death harms the sole why would they be willing to let others destroy their own souls to donate organs to them?

Because they might believe in an individuals right to chose their fate.

I can only hope that as the religious have changed their feelings on so many issues this one will soon be looked at in the same way we view people who believe cameras steal their souls.

No disagreement here. However for the moment that it's a fantasy, and not a valid basis for medical policy.

This doesn't work, it's not the same as what I was suggesting.

Why, both cases you are prioritising individuals based on long term returns, in one case organs, the other expertise. Both are as equally valid criteria.

I'm actually an organ donor as i have no issue with it. However my sister refuses to donate organs based on religious reasons. I disagree with her, but i do not support imposing it upon her.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

What right do you have to decide on who lives and dies according to their beliefs? You are imposing you set of values across the spectrum, some religions believe that the mutilation of the body post death will harm the soul or doom the soul to earth. Why not prioritise individuals with medical degrees for transplant, as they are more likely to repay the favour by working within the industry?

And some people believe all ailments can be cured with magic plant potions.

Why should we respect their beliefs?

[Their Law]

And some people believe all ailments can be cured with magic plant potions.

Why should we respect their beliefs?

Because as long as they treat themselves and themselves alone with their magic plant potions then it's their decision and their consequences. If they start forcing their ideas onto people then it becomes an issue and if they try to convert people to it then rest assured I'd be at the front to criticise them.

Ultimately it's your body and your decision.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

Freedom of choice, some people either dislike the idea of being chopped up for parts or their belief system forbids it.

Then they're parasites who don't deserve the benefits of donating.

Not sure what you mean here, do you propose that organ donors should get priority when they need an organ because of their willingness to donate down the line? Regardless it's a poor criteria as the need of the patient should be the deciding factor.

Organ Donor, not organ exchange, it is a donation not a investment. Medical priority should always overrule over personal opinion. At the end of the day the organ should go to the person who needs it the most. Not the person who's likely to reciprocate the favour.

If the favour is returned, more lives are saved. Do you really think that one selfish person is worth more than a group of generous people?

No. You can't force people into solidarity. That's thievery.

Why does it matter if it's thievery. I'm sure corpses aren't going to protest or care if they're robbed.

[hellheaven1987]

Why does it matter if it's thievery. I'm sure corpses aren't going to protest or care if they're robbed.

May be their souls would protest, who knows.

[Visna]

I think people should become organ donors by default, and if they for whatever reason don't want to part with their organs after death, they can request not be in the system. Possibly in exchange for being moved down the waiting list, should they need an organ themselves one day. That way the number of donors will increase, waiting lists will be shorter, and people who believe in some sort of bodily integrity after death can still get their way.

[Basil II the B.S]

I think people should become organ donors by default, and if they for whatever reason don't want to part with their organs after death, they can request not be in the system. Possibly in exchange for being moved down the waiting list, should they need an organ themselves one day. That way the number of donors will increase, waiting lists will be shorter, and people who believe in some sort of bodily integrity after death can still get their way.

What about followers of random religion ''A'', who believe that after death the body should be burned, and ashes should be spread in the waters of random river ''B''?
You'll be systematically downgrading them to second-class receivers.

[Visna]

What about followers of random religion ''A'', who believe that after death the body should be burned, and ashes should be spread in the waters of random river ''B''?
You'll be systematically downgrading them to second-class receivers.

Organs are already scarce. If they're not willing to give, why should they be given priority over someone who is?
Maybe if there is one day an abundance of donor livers on ice lying around it will be less of an issue, but when the system becomes implemented (if it ever does), I think it's important to distinguish not only between those who need, but also those who are or are not willing to give.

It shouldn't be much of an issue anyways, if their religious beliefs demand their bodies to be intact when they're dead, surely they wouldn't want to stand before the eyes of their deity with a heart which is not technically their own.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

What about followers of random religion ''A'', who believe that after death the body should be burned, and ashes should be spread in the waters of random river ''B''?
You'll be systematically downgrading them to second-class receivers.

Epiphany! Spread the ashes into water, and use that water on crops!

[Their Law]

Then they're parasites who don't deserve the benefits of donating.

What benefits? Donating is donating. It's not a social contract, otherwise it would be organ tax. There are no benefits to donating, it is a charitable act not a transaction.

If the favour is returned, more lives are saved. Do you really think that one selfish person is worth more than a group of generous people?

I think I don't have the right to condemn people to death based on such a superficial factor. By all means encourage organ donation, hell perhaps give incentives in the form of a monetary sum when you apply.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

What benefits? Donating is donating. It's not a social contract, otherwise it would be organ tax. There are no benefits to donating, it is a charitable act not a transaction.

Benefits of others donating.

I think I don't have the right to condemn people to death based on such a superficial factor. By all means encourage organ donation, hell perhaps give incentives in the form of a monetary sum when you apply.

Do they have a right to condemn others to death?

[Primo]

Two things:

1. Why not make them compulsory? There's always the possibility of families being pressured to cut off life support to a loved one just a little too soon though.
2. If not, why not give donors priority over others when there's (and there always is one) an organ shortage?

Some might say that's unfair. That's too ing bad. It's unfair that people can take without giving back. I can't imagine a reasonable argument against giving donors priority.

You fail to see the problem. Many people are like "I donate my organs after my dead, it wouldn´t bother me and would help people". The problem is, who defines dead? If someone is completely dead, every part, every organ of him is dead. But then it wouldn´t be of any use to anyone.

So you have to take living organs. And how many times a patient was declared dead but survived? Was completely dead but somewhen his heart started beating again, he lived again?

Thats why I won´t donate them, and will oppose any law which forces me to do so - I won´t steal myself the chance to recover.

It is kinda a moralic question: If I have - lets say - a 10 percent chance to survive, or I could do something good for someone else; What Would you do? I have long decided myself on that matter - call me selfish, but would you now, at this very moment, go and give away your live for someone else to have it? No. No matter what you say, you wouldn´t do it.

[Adar]

I think the OP got a good point but chose bad ways to increase the number of organ donations.

My suggestion
Make organ donor the default choice, give people the freedom to opt out of the organ donation program but make this decision also push them to the bottom of the organ recipient list if they need an organ.

You fail to see the problem. Many people are like "I donate my organs after my dead, it wouldn´t bother me and would help people". The problem is, who defines dead? If someone is completely dead, every part, every organ of him is dead. But then it wouldn´t be of any use to anyone.

So you have to take living organs. And how many times a patient was declared dead but survived? Was completely dead but somewhen his heart started beating again, he lived again?

Thats why I won´t donate them, and will oppose any law which forces me to do so - I won´t steal myself the chance to recover.

It is kinda a moralic question: If I have - lets say - a 10 percent chance to survive, or I could do something good for someone else; What Would you do? I have long decided myself on that matter - call me selfish, but would you now, at this very moment, go and give away your live for someone else to have it? No. No matter what you say, you wouldn´t do it.

The medical definition of death is when your brain dead (no electrical function in the brain). Journalists however love to claim that people are dead when their hearts stop beating. This is why you got the mistaken belief that people are able to stop being dead and come back to life.

The brain is your most vulnerable organ both to blunt trauma and lack of oxygen. This means that it is very easy to be dead despite having other organs which are fully functional. In modern hospitals we are also able to keep the heart beating which means that we can keep the organs alive for several hours after brain death.

You think it's arbitrary and meaningless, to allot of people they are a real and vital part of life.

In that case I would assume that it is so real and vital to their lives that they are willing to be dropped to the end of the donation list.

[Their Law]

I In that case I would assume that it is so real and vital to their lives that they are willing to be dropped to the end of the donation list.

Some sects actively refuse to have transfusions and transplants. As i said before, i disagree with their reasons. But i disagree more with imposing donorship upon them as the OP suggested. As for prioritising based on donorship, I'm ambivalent, i have no issue with being a criteria, but i feel there's many many many more important criteria to be used before it becomes valid. To the point that it becomes a non-issue. And it certainly shouldn't be an exclusion criteria.