WTF! WTF! Read this article: Prime minister calls for making organ donation automatic in UK "Britain's prime minister is calling for a sweeping change to the country's organ donation system, but the plan isn't sitting well with patients' rights groups. In an opinion piece in The Sunday Telegraph, Gordon Brown calls for an "opt-out" system for organ donation, in which consent is assumed unless people explicitly register disapproval."
Well, at least it beats out the Monty Python version - a knock at the door, "may we have your liver?", a form signed, and a hack saw, wanted or not. Welcome back, guru.
Thanks for the welcome. Is Crazy_Rob still moderating this forum? I see he just went trigger happy a couple of days ago and banned a bunch of people at will. Well the way he is going about it is very sneaky, he assumes people wants to donate there organs, and if they don't he puts the burden on them to notify him on them refusing. You see most people wont even know this law would exist or would be to busy to even opt out of donating until they are dead and their organs taken from them. You see the problem with that? I think it should be assumed that they do not want their organs donated and not the other way around.
This is a good idea. Most people intend to donate organs, But simply never get round to filling in the paperwork.
In the States you do that when you get your drivers license. There is an option that asks you if you want to donate your organs or not. It should just be like that. What if someone never wanted to get their organs taken from their body even after their death but never got around to doing the paperwork before they died, do you think it would be the right thing to do to take away their organs? If should be up to the individual to determine if they want their organs donated or not, and not for the government to assume that your intentions were to donate. How do they know that?
Yep, Rob is still moderating. I don't know about a bunch of people (wasn't it just yourself, and a guy who jumped on to flip out about your ban?), but it seems to me he was properly doing his job. You just came back, and I'd make the recommendation you stick to making substantive posts, as you are with this thread. I absolutely agree with you. I hate opt-out clauses, because they are usually an unwarranted imposition that requires my "no" to prevent the annoyance. Personally, I hope I'm eaten by a bear, and my remains feed scavengers.
Not sure how or what for did the moderator ban me, a link to the offending post would have put the doubt away. I read the other person coming to my defense and he is right in the sense that sometimes it does seem that there is a lot of banning going on for just speaking your mind. SolutionX was banned too I think Grab_My_Heat and a couple of more I believe. If the moderators keeps suppressing freedom of speach, the only people left here will be Gtech and Mia. Anyhow, back to the topic. I do agree with you I hate opt out clauses as well, its like those mailing lists that you don't even know how you got on them in the first place, but you have to go through a bunch of bullshit to have yourself removed.
It would still be up to the individual. If they don't want to donate their organs, Make that call and fill in the paperwork. We could use the same logic and say it's not for the government to assume that you don't want to donate. They can chop me up and have what they want when i go. It would disgust me knowing that my organs are rotting in the ground when they could be saving 3 or 4 lives.
Why would they ban SolutionX? He's one of the most polite posters around here? That's nonsense. Back to topic, who owns our bodies? Us, or the society/government? Think about it. It's an important question.
I think for me, it probably comes down to this. If my organs can help anyone, in any way, they are available for anyone's use. So, you bet, I took the energy to sign to it, on my license. On the other hand, I don't feel like donating, by default, to (name the clause). I respond to enough crap as it is. So, for instance, I would resent the hell out of every tax return taking a few bucks, unless I take the time to send in a form, telling the government, "uh, no thanks - I don't want to fund 'pain tolerance research in simians' with a portion of my tax refund." I'm in agreement with guru-seo on this one.
The opt in and opt out method still allows freedom to choose. From my behavior judgment studies would allow far more organs to be available. I can't remember the exact figures, but a survey shows that most Americans are positive towards organ donations, they are given the form to fill up to opt in during driving license renewal or something. But opt in method cause the take up rates to be far below that of those European countries having opt out methods. IMHO both methods allow freedom of choice and there are people dying everyday because of lack of donated organs, I would support an Opt Out method. Just an Add On Bush Tax cuts calling it a rebates was actually reducing the effectiveness of his policy, it would be more effective to call it a bonus. So how you worded your policies are important to get the desired results.
I guess I care less about the organ issue - since I would only want this lump of flesh to help someone on my death, anyway - than the broader issue of opting out, generally. It does make me peevish to have to fill a form out to not elect for something I didn't elect in the first place. Actually, to be brutally honest, guess I'm also just a conflicted mess, since my heart is torn between the statism of France and the libertarianism as it's being discussed here; on the one hand, between a notion that for me to render up my state of individual liberty, as it exists in a state of raw nature, the state needs to pony up, make itself worthwhile; and a bit of longing for true gemeinschaft, over gesellschaft, thrown in (look it up) for good measure; on the other hand, a profound discomfort at anything other than minimal intrusion on my increasing need for privacy. Guerilla, any guesses as to why I don't run for office? Anyway, guru - it's a good topic. Thanks for the thread.
Intellectual and spiritual honesty. I've had several people tell me I should run, and I want no part of that. I would rather support and share ideas than draw more attention to myself than the issues at hand. There is a certain irony to a libertarian seeking office.
I'm in agreement that if my organs will help another human being of course I will donate, at the same time though I would want the default assumption to be that the individual should be the one that makes the choice to OPT IN if he or she so chooses, NOT for some government to make the default a YES for the opt in. What's to stop the government to start making other default assumptions about our rights and bodies?
I respect your views, but the govt did not coerce or force, an opt out scheme is where you can exercise every right to opt out. There is no barriers to opting out. For those who feel strongly they can opt out anytime anywhere. But just by changing the defaults, new lives are given to the desperate and the dying. Also statistics shows that the majority of Americans supports organ donations, this is in deference to their views too. The problems in most cases for opt in scheme was that the majority simply do not care, even if they support organ donation, they do not care to fill up the opt in papers. For argument sake I can also say that the government has no rights to our bodies by the default assumptions that it is a "no" for opt in in my case. I want to donate, what right has the government to say that by default I am out unless I opt in?
Woah. You're jumping ahead here a bit. Why should we opt out? Is the presumption that the state owns our bodies, and we have to check a box to claim that right back? No, no, no. That sets a dangerous precedent. Opt in is the only moral way to do this.
You point is very valid. Now let me ask you this. Do you want the government to make that assumption for you? Or you much rather be the one who makes that determination? In other words, while I do agree on the nobility of the act of donating to help another human being, do you not see any issues with the default being a yes? Le me throw this scenario this way. Let's assume John/Jane Doe lives somewhere over the rainbow in pure harmony with nature and all its surroundings, they strictly believe that taking their organs out of their bodies is morally wrong and cannibalistic (Cannibalism is morally wrong) and they would stand against it. One day they decided to ride their horses to London when a bus clips them and they both die. In an emergency room somewhere there is a patient who is in desperate need of John's lungs and Jane's heart. John and Jane had never up to this point heard of the law being passed, but since the default is a YES, their organs where taken from their body and given to Patient A and B. Do you think the rights of John and Jane where violated?
Because the "no" is the absence of action - it is a "nothing." A default of having to opt out of a "no action taken" if you want something done makes more sense to me than having to opt out of an action to be taken, unless you prohibit it. My example above, by the way, of pain tolerance in simians, wasn't an academic exercise (no pun). I worked very briefly for the Dean of ___'s office, UIC, Chicago. I regularly saw proposals come across the desk that astounded me. And one that requested funding was a study to vivisect simian species, just to monitor the rise in stress hormones in their bodies. Torture, to see what kind of, uh, stress it causes. No joke. Now, to me, that is inhuman. Unconscionable. I wouldn't want a tax dollar going to such crap, unless I specifically say, no - please don't take my money and give it to this research. I know, I know - such things happen in all society. But I am not for increasing it. I'd rather, to be honest, save the money for administering the opt out program and use it to create a public education campaign about how many lives are saved by organ donation.
The two respected members above , I do know the dangers of such a precedence, but IMHO the benefits far outweighs the dangers of setting such a precedence. I did volunteer work before at a dialysis center, if you have been there and see the sufferings, that might change your mind. Or touch wood, if you have a close friend or relative having the need for organs transplant and there is a long queue due to the shortage and the person may die soon, that may change your view.
Well I opted in when i joined with a new doctor’s surgery, and am sure most people would do the same thing. I think GB's method of making us opt out is a better way to do things, the amount of people that die because people didn't sign a form is ludicrous. Anyway, from what I am aware of in the UK you have to have opted in, and after you die a family member/spouse has to give consent. Is this correct?