Should organ donation be mandatory?

Post Reply New Topic

I think the title says it all.

If you are fatally injured in an accident, and your organs are in good enough shape that they can be donated, should the government have the right to take your organs once you have died and donate them to those who need them?

No religious exemptions, no "personal belief" exemptions, no opting out of any kind... You die, you donate.

Discuss.

No.

Why? If you're dead and don't need them, and they could save someone else, why not? Do the rights of the dead have more weight than the rights of the living?

Absolutely Not. Each of us is the rightful owner of his own body and all the parts thereof.

Ergo, each of us can issue instructions on the disposal of our property up our death. The State has no prior claim to our giblets.

ruveyn

Are you asking or are you arguing?

My response is no.

Rights of the dead? What and why?

Rights of the living?! ! Whence and what?

Most I will say for rationale - the State has a lousy record on getting anything right.

No. I don't exactly like the idea of being looked at as an material asset to harvest against my wishes.

I am asking. People seem hell-bent on telling the living what they can and cannot do with their lives and bodies. And so, I am curious as to what they think about affording the dead rights at the expense of the still living.

I rather doubt the dead have rights. My dog may possibly have rights, but the fossils in the rocks on my grandpappy's walk had and have no rights.

Nor do people give or take rights by my definitions.

Still, some live people have an interest in some dead people [eg tribal burying grounds] as some people have an interest in certain fossils and animal remains. Do any of those live people have rights that are relevant?

I do not think rights have anything to do with your question. I do think common sense - particularly the Simpson / Sampson principle - is quite relevant.

I would hesitate to make it mandatory, but I would prefer for the default assumption to be in favor of organ donation, and to allow people to opt out if they object.

I am registered as an organ donor. Once I die, my corpse may or may not be good for scrap components, but it certainly will be of no further use to me.

I think the general attitude in society is that the person, and then their family gets to decide that. And I agree with that.

I can see problems with doctors getting to determine that. The main one being people becoming donors against their will or any other case where they shouldn't.

I.e. I read recently about some cases of people in a "permanent vegetative state," who, when given a sleeping pill (zolpidem), woke up. So, apparently, determining when someone is brain dead is not an exact science.

I've also heard that ER personnel tend to work on people who they perceive as drug users last. (It was a doctor who told me that.) And they apparently don't do drug tests to confirm their suspicions -- they just go with whoever seems scuzziest. So, I imagine that they would also tend to work on people with psychiatric diagnoses last. And I don't think it's a big leap to imagine some "psych case" being quietly allowed to die, in order to save a more normal member of society.

I am not medically trained, but I do believe there is a big difference between being in a "permanent vegetative state" and being "clinically brain dead."

I saw the show you are talking about. Those in a vegetative state are still able to breath on their own. Those who are brain dead must rely on machines to keep their body "alive." Without a ventilator, they would suffocate.

I believe in my province (Ontario) there is a drive to make it an "opt-out" system - a much better approach, I agree.

No. Religious exemption will stop the whole new program in it's tracks, and it would cause an endless stream of accusations that some people are being allowed to die to give their parts to someone wealthier, more powerful, or considered more advantaged in some other way. If doctors and hospitals were accused of using organs from alien invaders or some younger guy from the ghetto that were going to make the hospital lose money and give them to a patient that is paying for the transplant in full out of pocket, if something like this was discovered and it wasn't the first time it happened, some activist groups would raise hell.

You don not think the said accusations will come in whether religion is a factor or no?

FACT - humanity will be tempted to bring economics and perceived eugenics into the equation.

FACT - humanity will distrust the guard and those who guard the guards.

I do not see how religion makes either of those more probable. The right ideology MIGHT take some probability points from the fiormer.

If the government starts forcing people to donate their organs, it will be hard for them to work out all the legal and social issues. How are the organs distributed? Is donor's next of kin entitled to compensation? Would the organs get graded on the health of the organ? Would that affect the price the next of kin is compensated at? If the organs are graded, how to you determine who to give them to? Does the liver of a college athlete killed in a car accident go to another young kid (possibly poor) or does it go to an old rockstar who is paying for the whole operation out of pocket? When do you use the organs of substance abusers, smokers, and people on extremely side-effect prone prescription meds for most of their life, and who gets stuck with them? Convicts? medi-caid recipients? Do you save them for others that lived a hard lifestytle? How do hospitals handle the constant waves of deep-pocket lawsuits crackheds will file claiming they let a relative die to get their organs? How do you handle the constant claims from the ghetto that someone arranged to pass over their relative and give the organ to someone rich or with insurance? That's just the tip of the iceberg.

Or the biggest one, how is the precedent of giving the government a claim to your body kept from growing?

It's one thing to try and pressure people more to be a donor, but a huge government system is likely to work out as well as healthcare reform did.

That ^^

Also lol@giblets