1. Post #41
    woolio1's Avatar
    November 2009
    9,300 Posts
    Here in America, you are given a slip of paper to sign (in Triplicate) when you get your license. On that form, there's a box that you check for donorship. Just flip the box to an opt-out instead of an opt-in, and donor numbers will change.

  2. Post #42
    Moose's Avatar
    January 2010
    3,066 Posts
    i couldnt find the option to become a zombie on the form

    the system is flawed, if dead people are able to vote in america i would like to at least be given the option to become a zombie too

  3. Post #43
    Gold Member
    jeimizu's Avatar
    August 2007
    6,421 Posts
    Most who do not give organs do so out of laziness.
    Saying no takes just as much time as saying yes, so I don't see how its an issue of laziness.

  4. Post #44
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,042 Posts
    Saying no takes just as much time as saying yes, so I don't see how its an issue of laziness.
    In England, by default you're not a donor. I had to actively go out and register.

  5. Post #45
    Gold Member
    farmatyr's Avatar
    June 2007
    4,227 Posts
    What if you wake up with missing organs?

  6. Post #46
    Chief of facepunch medical staff
    Autumn's Avatar
    December 2006
    18,458 Posts
    rather than put the effort into applying to be an organ donor
    i really don't have much respect for people who aren't signed up to be an organ donor because they "can't be bothered" or it's "too much effort". you can sign up online or pick up a form from your GP/hospital, fill it in and you're done. and they're not long forms at all!
    so people who aren't donors simply because they cannot be arsed to fill in a short form really do irritate me.

    http://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/ukt/RegistrationForm.do

    look how short it is!

  7. Post #47
    Scar's Avatar
    September 2010
    4,167 Posts
    How about reversing the whole deal? You have to fill out a form if you DON'T want to be a donor?

    Really, everyone would win.

  8. Post #48
    Chief of facepunch medical staff
    Autumn's Avatar
    December 2006
    18,458 Posts
    i'm pretty sure that's what OP was trying to suggest :P

    that it should be that people have to opt-out of organ donation, instead of having to opt-in as we do currently.

  9. Post #49
    ultimate poster
    Itachi_Crow's Avatar
    November 2007
    13,562 Posts
    Beyond religious reasons I don't see why someone would even want to opt out of organ donation.

  10. Post #50
    Gold Member
    wraithcat's Avatar
    December 2007
    12,917 Posts
    Again, your organs have the potential to save lives of many, your estate, however does not. I never claimed you didn't have a right to tell people to "fuck off", which is why I proposed an opt-out system. Do you believe we have a moral obligation to help one another? Furthermore does organ donation not aid in this goal? It makes perfect sense to adopt an opt-out system so those whom lack the empathy and selflessness are allowed to maintain their rights.
    A person's estate can potentially improve more lives than your organs. Obviously depending on the estate.

    But to get towards a certain point - legally one does not own a body nor can any part of the body be owned. That's a pretty big point in legal definitions and leads to certain oddities with organ donations and the law actually.

    The body itself was actually a thing that could not be owned even in ancient Rome - a person could be owned but not their body or any parts of it.

    Which is one of the reason a slave's body was a body of a free man and was subject to the same legalities.

    The moment you open the door to mandatory donations you open a pretty big bag of shit. How is the ownership of this body defined afterwards. Obviously since on the moment of your death, the body goes over the state, one can assume that the ownership belongs to the state and you essentially just have a lease on your own body.

    And a host of other more complex situations.

  11. Post #51
    Scar's Avatar
    September 2010
    4,167 Posts
    Who gives a fuck about what people do to your corpse? You are dead anyway, and if it can potentionelly save lives, so be it. All this sentimental crap is dumb.

    Alive->Body is yours, and yours alone
    Dead-> Belongs to the state

    And even then, you should be allowed to sign some form or whatever to cease being a donor, but ONLY if you have a very valid reason. No religious garbage

  12. Post #52
    Gold Member
    Mabus's Avatar
    July 2007
    5,024 Posts
    It's like taking a watch from a dead guy, not very respectful.

  13. Post #53
    Tea
    Dennab
    December 2008
    4,084 Posts
    In death, "You", the sum of the conscious mind, a result of the brain, no longer exist, but rather would be decaying. Would you allow people to deny the chance of up to 10 individuals to have their life improved because of your desire to retain rights to their rotting corpse in death?
    You're kinda forgetting about religion here bro, I know no one here considers it relevant, but there will be loads of people who's beliefs this could interfere with

    Edited:

    What if you wake up with missing organs?
    you do know your organs are only removed once you're declared dead by a medical worker, don't you?

  14. Post #54
    Ah yes "opinions"
    Jackald's Avatar
    October 2005
    16,969 Posts
    Personally, I think organ donation should be "opt out."

    If you don't care enough to opt out, then you don't care enough that your organs will be taken.

  15. Post #55
    Scar's Avatar
    September 2010
    4,167 Posts
    It's like taking a watch from a dead guy, not very respectful.
    Respect for the dead is nice and all, but it shouldn't stop us from saving lives

  16. Post #56
    Gold Member
    Lone_Star94's Avatar
    April 2007
    908 Posts
    And give up my lungs to a smoker so he can smoke some more. Ah, no thanks.

  17. Post #57
    Gekkosan's Avatar
    October 2010
    5,668 Posts
    Maybe the family could get paid for the organs and other good shit you can harvest out of a healthy and relatively young male or female body?

  18. Post #58
    Chief of facepunch medical staff
    Autumn's Avatar
    December 2006
    18,458 Posts
    i think monetary benefits should not be applicable when it's to do with health and your body.

  19. Post #59
    Gekkosan's Avatar
    October 2010
    5,668 Posts
    But no don't make it mandatory.. Or I don't know, it wouldn't hurt, but I wonder how many organs go straight to the waste bin?

    Edited:

    i think monetary benefits should not be applicable when it's to do with health and your body.
    I mean't like, some young healthy individual out of a family has an untimely death at the age of.. 25. Then the grievance process and all, and then they get a letter from hospital asking if they could (buy?) the dead ones organs

  20. Post #60
    Gold Member
    squids_eye's Avatar
    July 2006
    5,765 Posts
    Perhaps it should just be a form you recieve in the post when you turn 16 or something asking whether you want to or not. A lot of people who wouldnt mind giving up organs probably don't even bother signing up and that is a bit wasteful.

  21. Post #61
    Scar's Avatar
    September 2010
    4,167 Posts
    And give up my lungs to a smoker so he can smoke some more. Ah, no thanks.
    Why not? You'd save a human being!

  22. Post #62
    Chief of facepunch medical staff
    Autumn's Avatar
    December 2006
    18,458 Posts
    I mean't like, some young healthy individual out of a family has an untimely death at the age of.. 25. Then the grievance process and all, and then they get a letter from hospital asking if they could (buy?) the dead ones organs
    but i think that if there was a financial benefit to donating organs, then they would be more likely to donate, regardless of what their stance was on organ donation beforehand, and i don't think it's fair to use money as a way to encourage people to let their relatives organs be harvested for profit.

    for example, say a family that have never been very wealthy receives news that their loving son has died in a car accident. now this family aren't overly religious, but it is their personal belief (and definitely the view of their son) that they would not want their organs to be donated; they wish to be buried/cremated 'whole'. but they're 3 months behind on rent and they're about to get kicked out of their home... so when a lovely doctor comes along and offers them x amount of money for their sons organs, although they don't really want to, it would seem illogical not to agree. so they've just changed their moral stance on organ donation purely for money.

    i just don't think money should have anything to do with it. and besides, how do you put a price on organs? $1000 for a liver, $750 for each kidney, $2000 for a pair of lungs (but it gets knocked down to $1200 if you'd ever smoked)? i just can never see it working, and like i said before, i think offering money for organs is essentially bribing people to donate when it may well have been against their wishes beforehand.

  23. Post #63
    Gold Member
    neutra's Avatar
    January 2012
    487 Posts
    Our body is our body. We can not be forced to give them away. If your organs are failing, I feel no remorse. Even if it wasn't your fault for your organ failure.

    Natural selection.

    Also, I dont want my clean as fuck liver to go to some drunkard who destroyed his.

  24. Post #64
    Screencapper's Avatar
    November 2011
    242 Posts
    As selfish and short sighted as this sounds, i want to be whole after death. Not parts of me here and there.
    I dunno. Forgive me for waxing philosophical, but I kind of like the idea that, if anything should happen to me, part of me will live on, making someone's life better.

    But then, I'm a donor, so I'm rather biased. I certainly respect your opinion.

  25. Post #65
    RAPISTS ARE OPPRESSED
    mobrockers2's Avatar
    April 2011
    12,403 Posts
    but i think that if there was a financial benefit to donating organs, then they would be more likely to donate, regardless of what their stance was on organ donation beforehand, and i don't think it's fair to use money as a way to encourage people to let their relatives organs be harvested for profit.

    for example, say a family that have never been very wealthy receives news that their loving son has died in a car accident. now this family aren't overly religious, but it is their personal belief (and definitely the view of their son) that they would not want their organs to be donated; they wish to be buried/cremated 'whole'. but they're 3 months behind on rent and they're about to get kicked out of their home... so when a lovely doctor comes along and offers them x amount of money for their sons organs, although they don't really want to, it would seem illogical not to agree. so they've just changed their moral stance on organ donation purely for money.

    i just don't think money should have anything to do with it. and besides, how do you put a price on organs? $1000 for a liver, $750 for each kidney, $2000 for a pair of lungs (but it gets knocked down to $1200 if you'd ever smoked)? i just can never see it working, and like i said before, i think offering money for organs is essentially bribing people to donate when it may well have been against their wishes beforehand.
    Lungs from a person that has smoked by default aren't applicable for transplant afaik.

  26. Post #66
    Chief of facepunch medical staff
    Autumn's Avatar
    December 2006
    18,458 Posts
    you do know that smokers/drinkers/drug users are significantly down further down the transplant list than those who aren't?

    it's not like if there are two 30 year olds; A's liver is failing because he's been a solid drinker since his youth, B's liver is failing because of some random complication
    A has been on the transplant list for 8 months
    B has been on the transplant list for 24 hours

    if a usable liver becomes available, and they're both positive matches, the liver will go to B, because there is a risk that A might ruin this liver by drinking, and then he may well need another transplant. whereas B is much more likely to benefit from having it, and is much less likely to "ruin" it.

    obviously there is much more to it than that, and that's a somewhat "perfect" scenario, but don't think that people who have organ failure due to their own decisions in life get the same priority as people who are afflicted for reasons beyond their control.


    and i also think that just because you don't want your organ to go to somebody just so they can ruin it all over again is not a valid reason to avoid donating at all. you could potentially save several lives by donating, and you're not willing to do that just because you don't agree with the way somebody might choose to live their life?

    Edited:

    Lungs from a person that has smoked by default aren't applicable for transplant afaik.
    i think you're probably right! i am far from a doctor :P

  27. Post #67
    Gold Member
    mrmr's Avatar
    September 2008
    4,120 Posts
    When I am dead you can take what you like.

  28. Post #68
    RAPISTS ARE OPPRESSED
    mobrockers2's Avatar
    April 2011
    12,403 Posts
    Though anyone trying to get on a waiting list has to stop smoking and drinking, so I don't think B would get it over A in this case, A has been on there pretty damn long already.

  29. Post #69
    Chief of facepunch medical staff
    Autumn's Avatar
    December 2006
    18,458 Posts
    A has been a solid drinker for many, many years

    what's to say he won't start it up again once he's got his new swanky liver?

    B is a much safer bet, in that respect

  30. Post #70
    Godline's Avatar
    February 2010
    1,255 Posts
    A has been a solid drinker for many, many years

    what's to say he won't start it up again once he's got his new swanky liver?

    B is a much safer bet, in that respect
    George best eat your heart out.

  31. Post #71
    Our body is our body. We can not be forced to give them away. If your organs are failing, I feel no remorse. Even if it wasn't your fault for your organ failure.

    Natural selection.

    Also, I dont want my clean as fuck liver to go to some drunkard who destroyed his.
    You're extremely offensive and you're ignorant to how natural selection works.

    First off, natural selection really no longer applies to the human race as we have advanced medically to extend people's lives and have created things that go beyond our natural ability, removing us from the "circle of life". We do not benefit the earth in anyway or work ourselves into any cycle of life.
    We merely consume and create for our own benefit (there are individuals who do care, but the majority live their lives for their own causes).

    I am guessing you are not a varsity football player, or anyone with extreme physical attributes. If you are not, then take into consideration that natural selection would probably kill you off it still applied as the stronger humans would have no laws stopping them from beating you into a pulp.

    So your argument was extremely narrow minded and I am sure if the above situation happened where some large man beat you so severely that you had internal bleeding and needed an organ transplant, you would be singing a different tune.

    I am in need of an organ transplant and I have lived my life as healthy as possible. I have never hurt another human and would not hesitate to help another human in need.

    Even with the need for an organ myself, I am on the organ donor list and if I do happen to die from complications, at least the rest of my body could help someone else in need. So I and other people are living our lives in pain enduring things that make up your nightmares and you sit there with some smug statement when you have no idea what you are talking about.

    This is a debate thread and you obviously have a right to your opinion but at least fucking research the bullshit you spew from your mouth.

    I was in the emergency room on my birthday and was diagnosed with the disease that ruined my organ. I had no health issues before then and the disease was hereditary from a distant relative.

    That above statement was not to invoke pity but to throw out the idea that these things happen in an instant at anytime for any reason and one day it could happen to you, or a loved one you hold dear. Then watch as your whole life changes and you get to see your body or someone you love fall apart before your eyes and as you scream for help, watch some other person who used to be like you say they feel no remorse and walk away.

    I hope you never have to endure what I have endured as I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy, but if it ever did happen I wouldn't mind seeing how quickly you would change your opinion.

  32. Post #72
    Gold Member
    carcarcargo's Avatar
    October 2007
    15,090 Posts
    Should not be up to the state what happens to your body when you die, it should be down to the individual and to some extent the immediate family, no one else regardless of what you think is right or wrong.

  33. Post #73
    Should not be up to the state what happens to your body when you die, it should be down to the individual and to some extent the immediate family, no one else regardless of what you think is right or wrong.
    I completely agree it should be voluntary, my response was to his ignorant and heartless reasoning behind it.

  34. Post #74
    I remember when titles used to mean something, now you can get one for a dollar, this all used to be fields, get off my lawn damn kids etc.
    evlbzltyr's Avatar
    May 2006
    6,271 Posts
    Pretty sure I remember hearing somewhere that your organs are harvested when you're barely alive, rather than when you're actually dead... So I wouldn't be too happy about that.

  35. Post #75
    Gold Member
    carcarcargo's Avatar
    October 2007
    15,090 Posts
    I completely agree it should be voluntary, my response was to his ignorant and heartless reasoning behind it.
    I wasn't responding to you, more the people who seem to think it's perfectly okay for the government to dictate what you can and cannot do with your body, which is kind of ironic since I'm sure a lot of them support legalising drugs which pretty much revolves around the same idea.

  36. Post #76
    Gekkosan's Avatar
    October 2010
    5,668 Posts
    but i think that if there was a financial benefit to donating organs, then they would be more likely to donate, regardless of what their stance was on organ donation beforehand, and i don't think it's fair to use money as a way to encourage people to let their relatives organs be harvested for profit.
    Okay, no price for the organs, but for the co-operation?

  37. Post #77
    Gold Member
    Brute's Avatar
    September 2005
    230 Posts
    Those who are deceased do not have legal rights, which should include the wild claim that they own their organs.
    I'm sorry, what? You lost the argument right there. Your credibility vanishes instantly. Those who are dead do have rights. The bodies of dead belong to the families that they belong to. Mandating organ donating would relinquish the rights of family, and if you're religious, the right to establish and believe in religion. Humans are sacred, they come in a whole for a reason, and barring dismemberment, stay whole. If you want to be an organ donor, you SIGN UP for it yourself while living. Worst case, it's suggested at the time of you being declared dead (no brain function, heart stopped, O2 sats <90)

  38. Post #78
    Chief of facepunch medical staff
    Autumn's Avatar
    December 2006
    18,458 Posts
    Pretty sure I remember hearing somewhere that your organs are harvested when you're barely alive, rather than when you're actually dead... So I wouldn't be too happy about that.
    braindead =/= dead

    Edited:

    if there is even the slightest, the smallest absolute chance that you could survive, they will not take your organs.

    i think what you're thinking of is how they are sometimes required to keep the body on a ventilator/bypass so that the organs are still receiving oxygen and won't begin to fail before they're even out of this body.

    but you are most definitely dead, even if your body is still being "kept alive"

    Edited:

    Okay, no price for the organs, but for the co-operation?
    then i think my point still stands; it's bribery and i do not think it is moral.

  39. Post #79
    Gold Member
    neutra's Avatar
    January 2012
    487 Posts
    You're extremely offensive and you're ignorant to how natural selection works.

    First off, natural selection really no longer applies to the human race as we have advanced medically to extend people's lives and have created things that go beyond our natural ability, removing us from the "circle of life". We do not benefit the earth in anyway or work ourselves into any cycle of life.
    We merely consume and create for our own benefit (there are individuals who do care, but the majority live their lives for their own causes).

    I am guessing you are not a varsity football player, or anyone with extreme physical attributes. If you are not, then take into consideration that natural selection would probably kill you off it still applied as the stronger humans would have no laws stopping them from beating you into a pulp.

    So your argument was extremely narrow minded and I am sure if the above situation happened where some large man beat you so severely that you had internal bleeding and needed an organ transplant, you would be singing a different tune.

    I am in need of an organ transplant and I have lived my life as healthy as possible. I have never hurt another human and would not hesitate to help another human in need.

    Even with the need for an organ myself, I am on the organ donor list and if I do happen to die from complications, at least the rest of my body could help someone else in need. So I and other people are living our lives in pain enduring things that make up your nightmares and you sit there with some smug statement when you have no idea what you are talking about.

    This is a debate thread and you obviously have a right to your opinion but at least fucking research the bullshit you spew from your mouth.

    I was in the emergency room on my birthday and was diagnosed with the disease that ruined my organ. I had no health issues before then and the disease was hereditary from a distant relative.

    That above statement was not to invoke pity but to throw out the idea that these things happen in an instant at anytime for any reason and one day it could happen to you, or a loved one you hold dear. Then watch as your whole life changes and you get to see your body or someone you love fall apart before your eyes and as you scream for help, watch some other person who used to be like you say they feel no remorse and walk away.

    I hope you never have to endure what I have endured as I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy, but if it ever did happen I wouldn't mind seeing how quickly you would change your opinion.
    As I am on a phone I don't have the time to create a formidable response. In fact though, in response, I am quite athletic and enjoy pursuing different activities. Yet I was at fault not to explain my story. My family line suffers from an intestinal disease that I too might be succebtable to. I'll pm you with the rest, as my next course is starting.

    Though I do stand firm that I never said organ donation was bad, just not mine. Talk soon, all the best.

  40. Post #80
    smelly member
    The DooD's Avatar
    June 2005
    7,098 Posts
    It makes sense to have to donate your organs once you are dead. If they're still in working order and you're dead, then why deny someone else the chance to live?