What's new
By:
Filters

Enforced organ Donation

Taylerlee said:
Is there not an unwritten understanding/belief/moral duty that we should do our upmost to help our fellow man/woman? and if you dont want to contribute to the common cause of saving lives 'opt out.' I find your comment that you should not have to lift your little finger appalling and nothing to do with principles, not when life and death are the issues.
Click to expand...

Actually, I've always been pleased to help others when I could, I just feel that it shouldn't be assumed that I should or that I should be obliged to, especially for "free".
 
bonus2010 said:
Actually, I've always been pleased to help others when I could, I just feel that it shouldn't be assumed that I should or that I should be obliged to, especially for "free".
Click to expand...
Sorry, but yes you should help others particularly if its a life or death situation and I would assume everyone including you would want to. As for your comment regarding doing it for 'free' are you serious?
 
Taylerlee said:
Sorry, but yes you should help others particularly if its a life or death situation and I would assume everyone including you would want to. As for your comment regarding doing it for 'free' are you serious?
Click to expand...

I happen to believe that in the case of organs, if the estate of the deceased were paid for those organs, then there wouldn't be any shortage of organs at all.
However, I also happen to believe (and I'll no doubt get shot down for this opinion too) that that is not what the government wants because they want get the organs for free to sell themselves.

"free", Yes I have been known to do lots of things for people for free, and I've donated lots of things for free, but also, I help people and take payment for it too, but all I'm
saying is, in the case of "free" I don't accept I should be obliged to do anything. For example, the surgeon performing the transplant operation shouldn't be obliged to do it for free.
(Again, only an opinion of mine)
 
bonus2010 said:
If there was problems getting organs, it wasn't due to the system, it was, again my opinion, a lack of promotion
in attracting the attention of those who would willingly donate but hadn't opted in.
Click to expand...

Promotion has been tried, it didn't work - people are still dying whilst organs that could have saved their lives are being buried or burned.
 
pupuqiop said:
Promotion has been tried, it didn't work - people are still dying whilst organs that could have saved their lives are being buried or burned.
Click to expand...

If you say "promotion" has been tried, its the first of me hearing, obviously hasn't been very good or well delivered. I've never at any time since my involvement
in social media since 2012, seen mention of asking people to opt-in to organ donation. Hey, compare that to Covid. I mean, I've had to go
out of my way to block that fake propaganda spouted by the government.
 
This is a good debate! I'm not particularly bothered if I'm "harvested" or not, as far as I'm concerned, just burn me and throw me in the bin, I couldn't give 2 f**ks, I personally think funerals are a rip off and it's pulls on the heart strings of families, I personally would like to see help with funeral payments as an incentive sort of thing of people donate organs, that would be nice to see.
 
I support making it mandatory to donate organs, as after I die I have no use of my organs neither my relatives have any use of it. It’s better to go for the needy who can have some benefit out of it.
 
Obi wan bissaka said:
This is a good debate! I'm not particularly bothered if I'm "harvested" or not, as far as I'm concerned, just burn me and throw me in the bin, I couldn't give 2 f**ks, I personally think funerals are a rip off and it's pulls on the heart strings of families, I personally would like to see help with funeral payments as an incentive sort of thing of people donate organs, that would be nice to see.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'd agree with you this has been a good debate, members kinder with their comments and respecting other's opinions.

A few years ago, I wrote to St Andrews University, Scotland to enquire about donating my body to science (when dead of course lol), they do a good job on
harvesting the organs there , but the benefit being, no funeral costs whatsover, they take care of the whole lot. Funerals and crematoriums is
something else I don't agree with, they've become spoilt with people wanting to shake the charity tin there.. anyway, thought
I'd mention it.
 
bonus2010 said:
If you say "promotion" has been tried, its the first of me hearing, obviously hasn't been very good or well delivered. I've never at any time since my involvement
in social media since 2012, seen mention of asking people to opt-in to organ donation. Hey, compare that to Covid. I mean, I've had to go
out of my way to block that fake propaganda spouted by the government.
Click to expand...


Families are 'blocking the wishes of organ donors', but doctors are blamed for 'giving in'

There's an article from 2012, including an advertisement for organ donation from that year.

Obi wan bissaka said:
This is a good debate! I'm not particularly bothered if I'm "harvested" or not, as far as I'm concerned, just burn me and throw me in the bin, I couldn't give 2 f**ks, I personally think funerals are a rip off and it's pulls on the heart strings of families, I personally would like to see help with funeral payments as an incentive sort of thing of people donate organs, that would be nice to see.
Click to expand...

Think I'll be going via "direct cremation" when my time comes. Throw the ashes up in the air somewhere green and pleasant and that's that. Can't see the need for all the pomp and ceremony of a religious service in this day and age.
 
pupuqiop said:
Families are 'blocking the wishes of organ donors', but doctors are blamed for 'giving in'

There's an article from 2012, including an advertisement for organ donation from that year.
Click to expand...

Sure, you're showing me an organ donation advertisement, and I remember seeing them around that period, but there's a lot
to advertising than just an advert. I believe there's a lot of skill involved to catch the attention of the public.

Interesting artcle though, where they're trying to blame doctors for not observing the wishes of the deceased to donate organs.
This in my opinion, is another example of government interference, the decision to allow the harvesting of organs should (again in
my opinion) be that of the owners of the remains , i.e. the family, regardless of the wishes of the deceased. Not being very
fair to doctors in that report.
 
bonus2010 said:
This in my opinion, is another example of government interference, the decision to allow the harvesting of organs should (again in
my opinion) be that of the owners of the remains , i.e. the family, regardless of the wishes of the deceased. Not being very
fair to doctors in that report.
Click to expand...

I believe that you're using such terminology as "harvesting" and "owners of the remains" to try to desensitise the subject. You wouldn't refer to someone gratefully receiving a donated organ as having benefited from a harvest, nor express your condolences to someone who was bereaved and refer to their loved one as remains they own. I think a lot of the views you express on medical issues are what I'd consider to be very selfish.
 
I said at the beginning of this thread that @bonus2010 view was meaningless as he was stating some sort of freedom of rights were being stripped from him! All you have to do is opt out of you were unavailable for donorship!
There obviously is a shortage or the changes wouldn't be implemented! Beggars belief that the deceased organs could be described as assets! and passed down to there estate? FFS opt in or out! Or am I missing out on another misinformation option?
 
pupuqiop said:
I believe that you're using such terminology as "harvesting" and "owners of the remains" to try to desensitise the subject. You wouldn't refer to someone gratefully receiving a donated organ as having benefited from a harvest, nor express your condolences to someone who was bereaved and refer to their loved one as remains they own. I think a lot of the views you express on medical issues are what I'd consider to be very selfish.
Click to expand...

I'm happy with my terminology that I use. I prefer the use of "harvesting" for three reasons:-
(1) the state removing organs of the deceased without their written consent.
(2) not all organs, or tissues as it is referred to are donated to a person
(3) from what I'm hearing, musch of the tissue is sold for money.
That's what 'harvesting' means to me.

Well, as I understand it, the 'remains' belong to the deceased's family, not the state, or so I think. I do know that it is the
family which is responsible for the disposal, or funeral/ cremation or whatever. (i.e. costs)

You're absolutely right, I wouldn't use the terminolgy described to a recipiant of an organ or a bereaved family member, but do note, I'm not speaking to either here in the context of my post
of offering to discuss 'organ donation' changes in the law (Scottish law in my case)

As for your opinion of my views relating to medical issues, you're very welcome to hold that opinion, although I do disagree with you :)
 
bonus2010 said:
Sure, you're showing me an organ donation advertisement, and I remember seeing them around that period, but there's a lot
to advertising than just an advert. I believe there's a lot of skill involved to catch the attention of the public.

Interesting artcle though, where they're trying to blame doctors for not observing the wishes of the deceased to donate organs.
This in my opinion, is another example of government interference, the decision to allow the harvesting of organs should (again in
my opinion) be that of the owners of the remains , i.e. the family, regardless of the wishes of the deceased. Not being very
fair to doctors in that report.
Click to expand...

bonus2010 said:
I'm happy with my terminology that I use. I prefer the use of "harvesting" for three reasons:-
(1) the state removing organs of the deceased without their written consent.
(2) not all organs, or tissues as it is referred to are donated to a person
(3) from what I'm hearing, musch of the tissue is sold for money.
That's what 'harvesting' means to me.

Well, as I understand it, the 'remains' belong to the deceased's family, not the state, or so I think. I do know that it is the
family which is responsible for the disposal, or funeral/ cremation or whatever. (i.e. costs)

You're absolutely right, I wouldn't use the terminolgy described to a recipiant of an organ or a bereaved family member, but do note, I'm not speaking to either here in the context of my post
of offering to discuss 'organ donation' changes in the law (Scottish law in my case)

As for your opinion of my views relating to medical issues, you're very welcome to hold that opinion, although I do disagree with you :)
Click to expand...
No one owns a dead body, there is no 'property' in a dead body, however certain people have responsibilities in its disposal. Further more Since a body is not property, the Deceased person's wishes are not legally binding or capable of being enforced. There have been challenges to this under the Human Rights Act 1998. Fortunately neither your opinion or mine matters
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top