Should the Government Decide if You're an Organ Donor?

Sorry, I hear stories of people being called brain dead and within the hour, their organs are harvested. I can't but think that if they weren't a donor, they would get a little more time to respond to treatment, after all some people who were called brain dead have sometimes woken up again. Doctors do make mistakes.

Basically I think they are so keen on organs that you don't get due care because they want your stuff asap.

I know someone who is waiting for a liver and hopes that he'll get one soon. I did ask if he doesn't feel weird hoping for someone else who is loved, to suddenly die, so that he can live.
After all, organ donors have families too but basically everyone who is waiting for an organ is secretly wishing you would all die quickly.

I do prefer the opt-out version but it should never be a mandatory decision.

a reply to: ReadLeader

After reading through the replies, it seems some people think being on the organ donor registry somehow transfers ownership of your organs to the government, who can then sell your organs. That's just simply not how it works. I'd look for sources, but I'm not even sure how anyone came up with that completely off-base idea.

a reply to: ReadLeader

No, and I've been an organ donor since I got my learner's permit at 17. Yes, it saves lives, but it should be a choice.

a reply to: NewzNose

This article is about the UK. Healthcare is nationalised here.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Many would volunteer, some might not for a variety of reasons.

Heck, I'm on a registry for bone marrow donation.

But it is a choice.

The state does NOT own us.

It's an opt out policy. Nothing to do with the state "owning" anyone.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

I don't see anything wrong with giving a choice with the default being "yes" instead of "no."

Agreed. No one's rights are being infringed. You can opt out if you want.

Yep, not a single right is being infringed. Its just shifting the system from opt-in to opt-out, so anybody who feels strongly against it just needs to tick a box.

Yes. They should also decide if you are worthy of new-to-you organs.

Absolutely not. When it comes right down to it, there are very few things left that a human being has control over. I always draw the line at my body and my mind. It should be up to me and no one else.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Absolutely not. When it comes right down to it, there are very few things left that a human being has control over. I always draw the line at my body and my mind. It should be up to me and no one else.

This intrigues me, why do you feel that way? Religious viewpoints or just a control issue? You planning on using it again? Do you have kids? How would you feel if they needed an organ because theirs was failing and death was imminent?

Not trying to start an argument, I'm just wondering.

Edit: The question can also be answered by the people that star the post I'm talking about.

a reply to: ReadLeader

I am of the opinion that it should be an opt-out, not an opt-in.
If someone has objections to any part of their body being used to save another life then they should be the ones to put that on a document and make that conscious choice.

Although, why anyone would want to deny someone else the chance to live in the event of their death is beyond me.

a reply to: ReadLeader

NO No Hell No. Organ donation as practiced today has made huge impacts on the lives of those lucky enough to get an organ. But..... It is rife with corruption etc. How else do you explain Larry Haggman and David Crosby jumping to the top of the list. Or that Steve Jobs made multiple flights in a private jet so he could list hop to a more advantageous region.

No the government already has too much control. Dictating what happens to us when we die is way way too much.

a reply to: DAVID64

They crammed Obama Care down our throats, now they want to take even our death out of our hands.

And they will! After offing Scalia, they'll put another Global Marxist on the Court and then there's nothing left to stop them.

a reply to: ReadLeader

I think it should be the persons choice still but I can't imagine anyone being so selfish as to not be a donor. Like you say, it could save someone's life so why wouldn't you want to do that if you could. I mean you're dead after all so your organs are doing you no good.

Personally, I don't think I'll have much left to offer when I kick the bucket, but what I have is up for grabs if anyone needs it when I'm done using it. In fact you're pretty much free to do whatever you want with my body at that point. Knock yourselves out.

How about a selective service type registry for organ donation?? Like, ok you are required to "volunteer" your donation status, but instead of penalties for not doing so, you are rewarded for doing so?? Like mentioned earlier, some partial subsidies for funeral costs, or even partial subsidies for our mandatory medical insurance premiums???

I find it pathetic that people care about what happens to them after death. I can't relate to that concept at all.

a reply to: ReadLeader

I am an organ donor, but that is my choice, it should always be a choice, the government doesn't own my body and neither what is inside of it, specially when you don't know to whom your organ will go, we know that is not only those born with deficiencies, but also those that all t heir lives never took care of their own bodies and then expect somebody else to bail them out.

When the government gets involved is always the chance for corruption, misused and favoritism.

Since there was some question on the U.S. process of handling organ transplants, here is the link to the organ donor site.

Organ transplant: Process

It's a bit of a more cut and dry look at it. They at least didn't sugar coat what people can expect after a transplant.

In a nutshell, I firmly believe organ donation registration should be a default registration when you get your ID/DL, not opt-in. It should in fact be the opposite, opt-out. People are either selfish, rushed, lazy, or indecisiveness (or all of the above) when it comes to checking that box on the form. FWIW, the hubs & I are organ donors. If ours can help someone else and be the silver lining to a personal tragedy, excellent. It's a waste to cremate us or let us rot in a buried box otherwise.

If it bothers you enough, religiously or otherwise, I'm certain people would slow down enough to remember to opt out.

a reply to: DBCowboy

It would imply that the government by default, has ownership of you and can make decisions after you die.

No.

Just no.

Also surgeons (and psychiatrists) should totally be public servants, that way the working and ruling class will be treated equally.
Hey it worked with praetorians, legislators and educators.

Ruling class business fails? Bail it out.
(...) Heart fails? Bail it out.

This is the case now so why write a new hoop into law to posses more dead?

Most donated urban corpses end up in snip.
Funerals are a liability
Cremations less
Pink slime is an asset.
Surely not, it would mean public services are being run like unethical businesses with no respect for public lives and we'd see symptoms of this such as lethal public waters and whatnot. Journalists would say something.

Mad cow disease was caused when cows were fed to cows remember, cow boy?