Make organ donation compulsory

[pikatore]

Make organ donation on death compulsory. You save more lives.

First point. From a purely economical point of view, its a horrible waste letting a dead person's body rot away in a grave, complete with organs that could be used for someone who still needs them.

Secondly, it is an altruistic gesture (in a sense), since through your death, you are helping other people live or enjoy a better quality of life.

I think we should start pulling away from old-fashioned ideologies and stubborn insistence on things such as rights (should dead people have rights in that sense?!) and realise that it would be a massive help to the health system.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: pikatore should dead people have rights in that sense?!)

No, live people should have rights; the right to decide what is done with their property. If a person wants to leave their fortunes to their family, they are free to do so without the government seizing it for public use. The same applies to any property, including one's own body. Are you ok with the governement seizing any finances left by the person upon death and putting it to public use?

[Osborn F Enready]

Pikatore said: Make organ donation on death compulsory. You save more lives.

No.

Pikatore said: I think we should start pulling away from old-fashioned ideologies and stubborn insistence on things such as rights (should dead people have rights in that sense?!) and realise that it would be a massive help to the health system.

I have rights, and will not negotiate, period.

You can give yours away though, why wait.

[The Dunedan]

Are you ok with the governement seizing any finances left by the person upon death and putting it to public use?

This individual is already advocating grave-robbery of the most intimate and offensive sort. What makes you think he'd shrink from slightly less invasive forms of posthumous larceny?

[loser]

Organ donation should be made a crime and ANY doctors attempting to transplant organs should have their licenses revoked and be made to do mandatory forced labor in prison. It's time to put Frankenstein to rest.

The only possible exception should be the donation of organs to the institutional kitchens as food supplements.

Good grief...you people are sick.

[nilan3000]

Organ donation is good and it does save lives and it is better for the economy.

However, doing it against the doner's wishes is pointless.

[Lotharia]

It's not at all pointless. The POINT is more living people would be helped.

It's not at all similar to the government taking their money - the money will be used by the family. The organs will rot in the ground without doing anybody any good at all.

The only thing keeping people from going along with this idea is superstition and myths about needing your rotted flesh in another life.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I have rights, and will not negotiate, period.

I'm not here to negotiate, I'm here to debate. So this thread isn't for you.

And for everyone, some organ tissue literally worth 10 cents of carbon and other basic elements and chemicals is a hell of a lot different than a hefty sum of money. You should know that, and make the important step that realising that it wouldn't be much of a loss to the person who died, AND that person's familiars, if some of his organs (assuming he was healthy) were used to further those who still have life in them or need such organs to survive. It's a good gesture anyway. Or maybe some of you still have a bit of a moral dilemma concerning death.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: pikatore I'm not here to negotiate, I'm here to debate. So this thread isn't for you. And for everyone, some organ tissue literally worth 10 cents of carbon and other basic elements and chemicals is a hell of a lot different than a hefty sum of money. You should know that, and make the important step that realising that it wouldn't be much of a loss to the person who died, AND that person's familiars, if some of his organs (assuming he was healthy) were used to further those who still have life in them or need such organs to survive. It's a good gesture anyway. Or maybe some of you still have a bit of a moral dilemma concerning death.

So if you, and your buddies negotiate our rights away we should learn to deal with it, right?


I oppose the idea because I am familiar with it, and I have no intention of letting my corpse become a laboratory for wanna-be Med students.


Sorry, but my first hand experience precludes me from ever agreeing with giving others authority over my body in this manor.

[pahl]

Organ donation should be made a crime and ANY doctors attempting to transplant organs should have their licenses revoked and be made to do mandatory forced labor in prison. It's time to put Frankenstein to rest. The only possible exception should be the donation of organs to the institutional kitchens as food supplements. Good grief...you people are sick.

Why is it sick? If a man gives his kidney to his brother to save his life, is that so wrong? I mean, even religious people usually admit that a organ, foot or hand is not a part of a persons self. If you loose a foot you are still the same person.

And i dont think that there should be a law to make organ donations mandatory, for purely egoistic and slightly delusional reasons. Besides, it would never work.

[brien]

Typical nanny stater idea. I have no problem with organ donation. I am an organ donar by choice myself. However, nanny staters can't leave their sticky hands off a person, even after they die. They don't tolerate choice, nor do they respect the rights, of individuals in society when it runs counter to their chosen cause of the day. They have decided what is best for everyone and anyone who doesn't agree with this p.o.v., must either be stupid or ignorant. Talk about tolerance. :rolleyes:

[Osborn F Enready]

Lotharia said: It's not at all similar to the government taking their money - the money will be used by the family. The organs will rot in the ground without doing anybody any good at all. The only thing keeping people from going along with this idea is superstition and myths about needing your rotted flesh in another life.

Individuals have FREEDOM OF RELIGION, and if they treat their bodies as sacred that is THEIR RIGHT, and their FAMILLIES RIGHTS to maintain that sacred vow from government infringment on the defenseless corpse who lived their entire life by that individual belief.

I am not government property, nor is my body after my life is gone.

Pikatore said: I'm not here to negotiate, I'm here to debate. So this thread isn't for you.

I make a valid point, at least in the U.S.A.

My rights are legally non-negotiable, except by myself of free will.
Where are you from?

This is a valid point of the debate you are framing.....

Pikatore said: And for everyone, some organ tissue literally worth 10 cents of carbon and other basic elements and chemicals is a hell of a lot different than a hefty sum of money. You should know that, and make the important step that realising that it wouldn't be much of a loss to the person who died, AND that person's familiars, if some of his organs (assuming he was healthy) were used to further those who still have life in them or need such organs to survive. It's a good gesture anyway. Or maybe some of you still have a bit of a moral dilemma concerning death.

....Or maybe, its our right to say.

I personally could care less if people COULD live longer, since that is not a goal in my opinion worth striving for. There are too many people, and far too many ignorant people.

Cold? Maybe.

But this isn't communist utopia either.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Lotharia It's not at all similar to the government taking their money - the money will be used by the family. The organs will rot in the ground without doing anybody any good at all.

Quote by: Pikatore And for everyone, some organ tissue literally worth 10 cents of carbon and other basic elements and chemicals is a hell of a lot different than a hefty sum of money.

Both value and usefulness are subjective and are certainly not up to you to decide with regards to other people's property. An intact corpse might be of great value to the deceased's family and "useful" in dealing with the bereavement. Whether this value comes from the family's religious beliefs or simply from the desire for their relative's wishes to be carried out doesn't matter. It's up to them to do what they want with the property left to them.

Quote by: Lotharia The only thing keeping people from going along with this idea is superstition and myths about needing your rotted flesh in another life.

Maybe so, but people are free to believe what they want. People donate money to the church because of superstition ad myths, but I don't hear anyone suggesting that religious people's money should be seized by the govenrment because the are not using it "properly".

Quote by: Pikatore Or maybe some of you still have a bit of a moral dilemma concerning death.

Like Brien, I am a donor by choice. The issue here with most of us is not that we have moral issues with organ donation itself, but that you are removing a fundamental right, not only from the deceased but from the family.

[Lotharia]

The OP was rhetorical, of course - since it will never happen. An exercise in "what if," I suppose.
There are limits on what we allow religious folks to "get away with" legally. People can't form a religion whose god prefers them to drive on the opposite side of the streets and demands six virgin sacrifices each month. What we were considering is another legal limit on the goofiness of religious dogma - OK to have your religion, but you can't keep your organs when you're dead.

[PatrickHenry]

I'll gladly donate my dick.

It has a proven track record and I hope it proves useful to the recipient.

The rest of me will be burned in the crematory.

[Osborn F Enready]

Lotharia said: OK to have your religion, but you can't keep your organs when you're dead.

Property is property, and it is a right communicated while living on what is to be done, that is their right.

I'm getting cremated....intact, unless I donate to someone before I kick.

[brien]

What we were considering is another legal limit on the goofiness of religious dogma - OK to have your religion, but you can't keep your organs when you're dead

.

The only idea that is "goofy" here is the idea that government should force people to do something against their will with their own private property.

In the USA, we have the RIGHT to LIFE, as bestowed upon us by the creator and listed in the Declaration of Independence. That right to life includes the management of our bodies. Government merely guarantees and protects that unalienable right endowed by our creator, and that is why YOU can't take it away.

[brien]

Quote by: Lotharia The OP was rhetorical, of course - since it will never happen. An exercise in "what if," I suppose. There are limits on what we allow religious folks to "get away with" legally. People can't form a religion whose god prefers them to drive on the opposite side of the streets and demands six virgin sacrifices each month. What we were considering is another legal limit on the goofiness of religious dogma - OK to have your religion, but you can't keep your organs when you're dead.

Please answer one question: Do you favor abortion or right to life?

[brien]

Quote by: PatrickHenry I'll gladly donate my dick. It has a proven track record and I hope it proves useful to the recipient. The rest of me will be burned in the crematory.

Lorena Bobbit's ex, John Bobbit, will probably phone you there PH.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Lotharia There are limits on what we allow religious folks to "get away with" legally. People can't form a religion whose god prefers them to drive on the opposite side of the streets and demands six virgin sacrifices each month. What we were considering is another legal limit on the goofiness of religious dogma

The two examples you give are not relevant to organ donation. In those examples, the person in question is directly causing death or endangering life. This is illegal because people have a right to life as defined in the legal system and in the constitution.

In the case of organ donation, the person refusing to donate his or her organs is not infringing upon anyone else's rights, be they legal or constitutional. Nowhere is it stated that a sick person has an unconditional right to be cured. Furthermore, taking the organs against the wishes of the deceased and the deceased's family to whom the organs were entrusted is a direct violation of property rights, property rights being very well defined elsewhere in the legal system.