It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Organs to be taken without consent

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   
So many good and useful organs are wasted every year that it is awful. Many people, especially kids, could get a second chance at life if more people would sign up and allow organs that otherwise would rot to be of some use. What possible good are they burned up or buried underground?

If some sincere religious conviction compels no organ donation, then for the families sake, let them opt out. But anyone else would have no knowledge of what happened as they would be dead already. I would be all for making it normal to harvest organs automatically unless the person had opted out in advance. Trying to convince relatives grief stricken and likley to uphold the deceased's last wishes would be unlikley to allow harvesting, and that is a ineffective way to get consent.

No, for the good of all, people must wake up and stop looking at the body as some ' yucky ' mess of organs and guts that will somehow comfort them in the grave and see that to destroy useful and irreplaceable organs is a sin, if not a crime. Maturity is needed to realize the futility of the flesh and the real import of life, the essence of spirit. Be a good spirit and one that shows you care about those left behind: Give away what you cannot take with you, and enjoy a good feling knowing that some kid may smile, and live, because of your generosity and sense of kindness.




posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 12:06 PM
link   
In my country (The Netherlands) a few people made this television program called De Grote Donorshow.

It was about people which needed a kidney transplant and one girl called Lisa would donate one.
Problem is, 30 people, 1 kidney, how do we deal with this?
So some stuff happened, and at the end... *drums please*

The presenter of the show announced that it was all FAKE, everyone in the show knew that it was fake, and they did it just to get some attention to the whole donor issue.

Shortly afterwards they had 12000 new donors.

So saying that Ad campaigns or commercials or something similar doesn't work? I wouldn't say so.

[edit on 14/1/08 by -0mega-]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   
I think people should re-visit the proposal and actually study what it says. The committee's proposals are almost identical to the scheme that has been running very successfully in Spain, where the lives of thousands have been saved and as in every other scheme in operation, If you don't wish to be considered as a donor, opt out! Bodies wont be farmed of organs, it doesn't work like that. Donor and recipients must be tissue match and organs removed from a body must be used as quickly as possible before deterioration commences. You can't store Kidneys, Retina, Livers etc. for a rainy day. Finally, lets leave Gordon Brown out of this (along with the Nanny State, The NWO, Socialism etc., etc.). He was asked what he thought of the Committee's proposals and gave his opinion.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   
A star for the OP! I totally agree: the UK is a "Nanny State"

I couldn't believe my ears when I heard this story on the news. If I want to donate my organs, then it's my choice - NOT Gordan Brown's!

What next?



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   
"whats next"
Innocent children dying because of greed . Oh wait that happens everyday why change now right?

I think people that opt out and could have saved a life should be charged with negligent homicide dead or not!



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 01:29 PM
link   
This kind of legislation is absolute garbage and yet another bit of the liberals dragging down society and the rest of the world.

Heres a concept for some of you to digest, but most have too much ego to accept it. People like me don't donate our organs, never have and never will because:

First: we believe our right to regulate what happens to and with our bodies is perpetual.

Second: YOU do not have a right to anything of anyone elses.

Third: Many people (myself included) look at it as a betterment of the human race. I'm sorry little timmy was born without a liver, or sallys kidneys kicked out after a way, but thats called survival. Maybe, they just aren't meant to survive? So what are we to do? Save these wastes of human strength with all kinds of surgeries and lifetime treatments just so they can continue on and breed another generation of weaker genetics for the public pool?

Fourth: No compensation. Want organs? Pay for them. Sure, it won't go to me of course but it will go to my estate.Have a fee schedule, or even make a bid for it before hand. that is fair and clear. A liver is going to cost you 300k at least from me. Think that's too much? what, are you saying your life isn't worth 300k? tough luck charlie. Don't try to guilt my family into it either.

Fifth: Maybe I'm an ornery, selfish, antisocial butthole of a human being, but you know what? I have that right to be. Your wants and needs are not allowed to trump that.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Mindless
 


Hah......

That's the ticket. scare people into doing the right thing.



Anyway,

I think it's pretty obvious that the people should have the right to do what they want with their body. At this point, I'd opt out simply because I'm being forced to do something. I'm currently an organ donor, but in protest, I'm going to revoke it.

I'm disgusted that by default, your body isn't yours unless you make a point to say that it is. It should be assumed.

It's never a good idea to force your beliefs on someone.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoffinFeeder
This kind of legislation is absolute garbage and yet another bit of the liberals dragging down society and the rest of the world.


And this post is another example of conservatives insisting on polarizing a conversation. This isn't a liberal/conservative issue. Hell, this is similar to the abortion debate.

My body my choice, right?



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Rasobasi420
 



Ha i guess i did push it a bit . But i totally agree with your last post here .
Where is the line ? All these double standards . Why cant a woman suport her family with prostitution ?
I mean its her body right? Its the johns body right ?

Untill theres a line we will continue to argue about this stuff . Where do we compromise?
You keep you heart i kill my baby(embryo) ..

I think we need a poll.

[missed a few letters here and there ]

[edit on 14-1-2008 by Mindless]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoffinFeeder


Third: Many people (myself included) look at it as a betterment of the human race. I'm sorry little timmy was born without a liver, or sallys kidneys kicked out after a way, but thats called survival. Maybe, they just aren't meant to survive? So what are we to do?


first: what if little timmy or little sally was your son or daughter and was born with failing organs? what if they started to fail at age lets say 10?
would you be so blaze' about it or would you want them to be put on the transplant list?
just curious?

is everything you do for the betterment of the human race?
please answer and not just gloss right over this question



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoffinFeeder


Third: Many people (myself included) look at it as a betterment of the human race. I'm sorry little timmy was born without a liver, or sallys kidneys kicked out after a way, but thats called survival. Maybe, they just aren't meant to survive? So what are we to do?


That's a weak argument. What if little Timmy had the could grow up to be the person who cured cancer, or developed free energy. That would benefit humanity much more than their death.

I'm not saying any one life is more important than another, but I do know that it should be my choice as to whether or not I give up my organs when I die. If I choose to do right, it should be my choice, not have it forced upon my by my government.

[edit on 14-1-2008 by Rasobasi420]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Mindless/Inspiteof, under this proposal there will be a surplus of organs to be be used and they will be sold just like any other business commodity, it happens in China, India and plenty of other places.

Dont think for one minute that its because of the well being of the population, its about money and nothing else and once you put a price on something you can sell it be it people or bits of them, reality time boys.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Sorry i wasn't deputing the possibility . Just pointing out that it was speculation .

I could just as easily assume that the "coming of christ" could be halted cause he dies of cancer at 3years old. (forgetting his fairy dust healing)
All because he couldn't count on the kindness of others .
[Basicly how will we ever know if we dont try.]

I mean you can opt-out. If its found that its being abused people will opt-out and it will have a huge adverse affect . Putting us back to square one.


I understand our ability to chose separates us from the animal kingdom .
But our ability to make the right choice is what separates us tyrants.



[edit on 14-1-2008 by Mindless]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Ok I'm back, I'm going to make this simple, I'm looking at this from all angles.

1. It's our body, our choice!! - This I agree with, it's the basics of respect and free will, and without these we have nothing but a sad world.

2. More people need donors, we need to educate people, we need to convincce people to donate with "FREE WILL"! remember free will is common sense!!

3. Remember the families!, the last thing some people want after losing a loved one, is also having to deal with someone taking apart your loved ones body. some people like the idea of a normal burial, imagine a little boy losing his father having to deal with this. RESPECT again people. Respect is what keeps this world together.

So remember Respect, free will, and spread the word about donating. It's about balance.


Also one more thing, behind many things that goverment tell you, many times there lays something hidden, or an agenda. Compare it to baby steps, we have the right to make sure we stop the goverment doing stuff we don't believe in, because if we don't, the baby steps will keep coming and people will start to accept ANYTHING the goverment does.





[edit on 14-1-2008 by _Phoenix_]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   
So you more or less agree that a vote should be in order to determine if
the majority want to be donors.

If the majority support it then it would be easier to have an opt-out.

Also i dont think if you tell a 5yr old "were gonna use parts of your dad to save someone life"
That there gonna freak out .
As a test ask your kids nephews w/e if they would support it . Im sure if its explained right they would .



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   
I only have one thing to say, Never trust a government to make personal decisions in the name of for the good of humanity.

While I have no problem with organ donation . . . if is to preserve and save life . . . I do hate to see government involvement in this type of issues. . .



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420


That's a weak argument. What if little Timmy had the could grow up to be the person who cured cancer, or developed free energy. That would benefit humanity much more than their death.


. If I choose to do right, it should be my choice, not have it forced upon my by my government.



it is a very weak argument. thats why i asked if he would feel the same way as he says he does now if he had a child that needed an organ.
still waiting for a reply though.
it's probably going to be a while



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   
It could (dog forbid) be argued that politicians are people too (omg i cant believe i typed that ) j/k

So who do you think should decide this type of stuff?



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
The list for transplants is really small, but the problem is no one actually bothers to sign up for donation. No one will "make money"


I would agree with this 100% This is the case even here in the US. Its not a money making deal.



I find it really depressing that some people in this thread appear to be cynical to the extreme or just plain ignorant about transplantation.


I don't think anybody has spoken out against organ transplantaion. I myself work in and transport children to our hospital for transplant surgery. We transplant everything at our facility from bowel to heart and everything inbetween.

The issue here that most people seem to object too, myself included in the one of "presumed consent



If someone rejects the idea of donation based on religion, then I personally regard them as backward, subhuman animals.


But that is thier right. In fact that is the ultimate personal freedom, to refuse medical treatment or yes organ donation.

Is it acceptable to "force" people to donate?



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mindless
Also i dont think if you tell a 5yr old "were gonna use parts of your dad to save someone life"
That there gonna freak out .


it does not work that way. In the US, in the past doctors were obligated to ask families. However, no, the MD's make a call and a trained specialits comes out and ASKS the family in question. They are trained in how to repond to small children and the like as well.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join