Organ donors

Remove all ads!

I'm sorry to hear that it did not work out, Snook. I hope they find one soon.

 

Well, Tal, I wasn't really aiming at the criminals so much as the doctors with a God complex deciding that my life isn't worth as much as someone elses, and letting me die so that other person can live. I used an extreme example of a real criminal lowlife, but it could be anyone, really. And while if I am dead I have no problem helping out, I don't want my life to end before it should because the doctors don't help me in the hopes of getting hold of my organs.

 

LKD, I understand your paranoia. I don't think it's entirely justified (thus still calling it paranoia, you old loon ), but I do understand it.

I'm a donor and have been from my first driver's lisence. When my time comes, they can have whatever they want. I honestly don't care what happens to any of my body at that point. My God gave me this one and He can give me another when the time comes . No matter what, He'll need to, whether it's by maggots, knives, or fire, so you all may as well get as much use out of it as you can.

All that being said, I hope to use my organs to their bitter end on my own , and maybe a bit longer, science willing.

As for Snook, good luck with the liver. As I understand it, livers and kidneys are easier to find than lungs or hearts, because you can donate one (or part of one with a liver) and still live.

 

How on earth would that violate the human rights act? They don't take your organs until you're dead and you're allowed to opt out, after all. Other than religious beliefs, I can't think of a single rational reason not to be an organ donor.

To respond to a couple earlier posts, the very concept of being opposed to organ donation is utterly foreign to me. It's one thing to choose not to be a donor for religious or philosophical reasons, but quite another to actually oppose the practice of organ donation -- and, by extension, organ transplantation -- for everyone else. I would very much like to hear the justification for that.

EDIT: It occurs to me that it is entirely possible that the individuals who professed opposition may have been speaking only of themselves, and that implying that they opposed the practice as a whole was never their intent. If I have misunderstood anyone, I apologize.

 

I dont care what other people do with their organs. My stance is nothing more than me being a selfish bastard with a baseless grudge against the entire world and not being a donor is just a petty way of "getting back" at the universe or something. Oh and the fact that for some reason I feel very strongly about things I consider mine and organs are something I really consider to be wholly and completely mine. Same as with children, I would never ever give away a child by adoption but I could consider aborting a child.

 

Drew, there have been cases of doctors, erm, fudging treatment on one critical patient to procure organs for another. It's increadibly rare, and they go to jail, for a very, very long time, but it has happened. If you're primary concern is yourself, it's safer not to be a donor, if only slightly.

 

Sure, but that hardly justifies opposition to the entire practice of organ donation.

 

To clarify, I am not opposed to organ donation for everyone else. And to be honest, if a family member or friend needed a kidney* from me while I was still living, I'd do it -- that includes you SP folks, too! All of you!

And if my head got sheared clean off in an accident, the world is welcome to whatever they need from my already very dead body. I just worry about the safeguards on it to prevent misuse of the system or abuse of any group deemed "undesireable".

*or any other organ I don't need to survive - -I think they could theoretically take just a piece of my liver while I'm alive, right?

 

Drew, because an opt out system could force offence to the following act:

Article 9: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

 

How?

 

No, but I don't think anyone has objected to the entire practice. Combined with the paranoia of LKD or the self-admitted jerk-y-ness of Joacqin, it may prevent you from checking that box.

The liver is the only organ in the human body capable of significant regeneration. As little as 25% of the liver can potentially regrow the whole organ. How long it takes depends on how much is taken, but a typical adult-to-adult liver transplantation uses the donor's right hepatic lobe, which amounts to 60% of the liver. Children needing a liver transplant can get away with as little as 20% of an adult's liver. That being said, this is still major surgery, which carries plenty of risks. For once, thank you Wikipedia. This stuff, I trust them on.

I'm with Drew: how? Looking it up, it basically looks like our Freedom of Religion, but including philosophical stands like veganism. Maybe establishing a positive default would violate people's religions by default?

 

If Im against organ donation and they bring in an opt out system and something happens to me then then harvest my body then that violates my freedom of thought.

If Im religious and my religion prohibits actions like organ donation and something happens to me and they harvest my body, that violates my freedom of religion.

 

... Unless you opt out.

 

The UK is notorious for not giving people information regarding changes in law.

I was horrified to find that I appeared on the organ donor list, I even emailed them after removing myself to ask what the hell they thought they were doing, they blamed the DVLA, it makes you think how reliable and how quick the "opt-out" system would be if mistakes happen now with an opt in system.

 

Parents can also put their children on the register without informing them. So in later life they may not think to check they're NOT on the register.

I've simply made my wishes known to my partners and family for all funerary and post-mortem arrangements I wish.

If they disobey me I will haunt them - simple

 

NOG, I oppose ALL "opt out" lists. You should never EVER have to "opt out" of a system or list. It should be your option to opt IN to it, but you should never be forced into a system or onto a list and only get out of it if you are aware of its existence.

"Opt out" systems force people to join without any affirmative informed consent. They are a way to sneak people onto lists or systems without their knowledge. It's pure bull... crap.

I refuse to sign up for the "opt out" list to stop telemarketers from calling... not because I like telemarketers, cuz I don't, but because IMHO signing up for such an "opt out" list condones its very existence and tolerates the very existence of the "opt out" concept.

"Opt out" lists and systems should be banned by law.

 

Crucis, the telemarketer thing isn't so much of an "opt-out" (i.e. not joining a group) as it is an "opt-in" (i.e. joining a group).

 

I disagree.

I don't think that it's right that the presumption should be that telemarketers should have the right to call people. They should have to ask our permission ... and people should have to "opt in" to a list that allows those leeches to call.

The way it is now, I have to opt out of a system that presumes that those annoying bast***s have the right to call you.

My telephone is not your marketing media!!! (Not directed at you, NOG...)

And, tangentially, I feel the same way about junk mail. I'm sick of my mail box being turned into trash receptacle full of junk mail that I'm forced to go thru to find the REAL mail, and then throw out the trash junk mail. Who F-ing gave them the right to waste my time like that? So, again, my mailbox is not your marketing media!!! (and again, not directed at you, NOG... )

---------- Added 0 hours, 10 minutes and 50 seconds later... ----------

Followup post...

Also, I'd define the difference between opt-out and opt-in this way...

Opting in is accepting something or allowing something that you are not required to do or accept. Opting out is refusing to accept or allow something that is otherwise forced on you.

I believe that "opting out" processes are morally wrong, because they are essentially a con job. You are forced to accept something and can only "opt out" if you are a) aware that you are being forced to accept that something in the first place, and b) if you are aware of "a", you are in turn aware that you have the right to "opt out" at all.

OTOH, with "opt in" systems, you are not secretly forced to accept something. You have to be fully away of what is being asked of you and you have to affirmatively decide that you will accept whatever that "something" is.



Opt out systems are essentially based on the ignorance of the public to attain whatever it is that they are trying to attain, whereas opt in systems require the informed consent of the public to get whatever they are seeking to get. Thus, opt out systems are morally reprehensible and should be outlawed.

 

Telemarketers have the right to call people for the same reason that you have the right to call people. This isn't going to change. Any attempt to ban the entire practice would just be shot down in court. It isn't all bad, though. If a telemarketer continues to call after you've asked them to stop( in unambiguous language -- a simple "I'm not interested" won't be interpreted to mean "please add this number to you no-call list" -- and no company is going to allow its telemarketers to give you the opportunity to clarify), they are required to do so -- and the fines for failing to comply are very, very steep. After making such a request, they will not be able to call you again for quite some time (though the exact length of time they have to wait depends on the regulations in your state, it'll be at least a few years*).

The state would overstep its authority if it attempted to flatly deny an individual or corporation (individual operators make cold calls, too) the right to contact potential customers via telephone, but it is able to place limits on their activity and their conduct. It can limit the times they are allowed to call, how many times their employees are allowed to "respond" to "objections", how many calls their dialers are allowed to "abandon", etc. The state can even require telemarketers to ask at the beginning of the call if they have permission to proceed (all of my examples come from actual limitations placed on telemarketers by different state governments -- if it wanted to, I'm sure the federal government could impose such standards at a higher level). Incidentally, being on the DNC doesn't actually insulate you from telemarketing calls, since the DNC does not apply to anyone who already has an existing business relationship with you.

* In general practice, businesses will scrub your name indefinitely when you've made the request, but they aren't required to do this by law.

 

... Does everyone else have the right to call you? Do you have the right to call them? It's pretty much a basic presumption that everyone has the right to call everyone else. You don't have to answer, or listen to them if you do, but as long as they pay their phone bill, and you pay yours, they have the right to call you.

In that case, human socialization is an opt out system. The only way to avoid it is to become a hermit.