Festival of Obvious Ideas #2: Compulsory organ donation

ZSRenn says:

10:07am | 17/10/11

One point the article misses Acotrel is that for the same reason you are not eligable to donate, age, and with Australia ranked 165 in the Youth mortality rankings we may have less donors for that reason.

Rick of DB says:

04:03pm | 17/10/11

Reminds me of The Meaning Of Life, sir did you put your name down for organ donations? well unfortunately we need them now!

skepdad says:

10:10pm | 18/10/11

It would end up effectively “opt out” even if it were notionally compulsory.  All you’d need to do is invoke your magic sky fairy and you’re off the hook.

Maybe those who opt out should go to the bottom of the list to receive an organ should they ever need one.

When you’re dead, your body is meat. That meat could save someone’s life, give them sight, or improve their quality of life for the time they have left. You’d rather bury that meat in the ground for the worms, or burn it to ash, than help someone?

I can understand why some people might be squirrely about allowing their cadaver to be used for medical research or educating medical students, and I’m even a bit sympathetic to that.  But refusing or opting out of organ donation is unforgivable, and if your sky fairy had any sense of right and wrong it would be written on your golden plates and holy books and stone tablets.

Brian kptx says:

11:31am | 30/03/12

I am a very strong supporter of organ donation AND I absolutely support the right of the family to have the final decision on all end of life issues. So what is essential is that the family is given the best support and care while they make these difficult decisions. This is why it is crucial to have very well trained people to assist and guide the families. All the evidence from the leading countries in organ donation is that this is the most crucial element to increase the number of actual donors

Tina says:

06:42am | 17/10/11

That does not work though. As you said you can then become a donor at the age of 18 with your driver licence. So that means that the older you are, the higher your are ranked to get a donation yourself. So an 80 year old would be preferred over an 8 year old.

acotrel says:

06:59am | 17/10/11

@SuperD
’ It’s only fair that if you’re not prepared to donate your organs - which is entirely your right - then you should have no claim on the generosity of others. ‘

Perhaps we could make the promise of organ donation a pre-condition for receiving a Centrelink pension ?

acotrel says:

07:13am | 17/10/11

@Tina
Medical decisions are not usually made on the basis of values.  The ethics dictate that the procedures go to the people who will gain the most benefit, regardless of age, race, position, political persuasion, religion, sex or any other factor on which we might place more or less value.  Your organs could help one of those old drunks who sleep in the park, or a new-born baby, a communist or a nazi, or even Tony Abbott !

Super D says:

07:18am | 17/10/11

@Tina - perhaps it could work on percentage of adult life as a registered donor with some sort of phasing in process.

@aco - thats just silly.

acotrel says:

07:36am | 17/10/11

@SuperD
‘@aco - thats just silly.’

They were your words !

Tina says:

08:00am | 17/10/11

I think you would have to be very careful when implementing a system on who deserves a donation more than someone else. The problem is that the idea might be good, but then you get errors in execution and some terrible mistakes are made.

I understand the thought that only someone that is a donor should be allowed to receive a donation. But I would not want to make the call. And what about the ones that dont qualify as donors? Or people that are new in Australia?

It is such a delicate and complex subject.

Chris_D says:

08:25am | 17/10/11

@Super D, “I completely disagree with compulsory organ donation.  What you are saying is that if someone dies the state has the right to carve up their body as is seen fit by government organ harvesters.”

Strawman.

chungo mung says:

08:27am | 17/10/11

lets have this chat again SuperD (and everyone else who feels our rights of ownership of body need to extend into death) if you find yourself needing a donated organ within a couple of weeks to live. We will see if the selfish notion of ownership (by the dead) of useless body parts whose destiny is to rot for the ‘feeling’ someone had before they died, are the same - we will see perhaps, if your opinions have evolved.

I wonder what percentage of people out there are advocates for the ‘right’ to own your flesh after you are dead - who also advocate that gay people should not have the ‘right’ to marry, or that people who are refugees do not have the ‘right’ to come to our country.

I reckon there is a lot of bullshit reasoning around when people start mouthing off about rights.

Tina says:

08:41am | 17/10/11

@ Cungo

I think as you can see here most people are not questioning that donations should be made. They just dont agree with the “how”.

One person said it should only go to a person and not to research, another wants to pick the person receiving the donations, others criticise the execution and lack of respect.

AdamC says:

08:41am | 17/10/11

Chris_D, how is that a straw man argument? It is the whole idea!

I don’t believe the state should be able to harvest organs from anyone who has not given express (preferably recent) consent. I find the alternative utterly horrifying.

Super D says:

08:46am | 17/10/11

@Chungo - ok then at what point is the state allowed to exert a right to your organs?  As the line between life and death becomes increasingly blurred the last thing we need is state intervention.

I don’t see why your body would not simply become property of your estate.  Perhaps this is the way to increase donation rates - allow the estate to sell the organs?

The overarching point is that organ donation has historically been an act of altruism and any sort of move to coercion or compulsion needs to be examined from the perspective of the rights of the donor, not just the benefit to the recipient.

Chris_D says:

09:28am | 17/10/11

@Adam C, because no one mentioned any of the points he made.

Your comment however is more balanced.  The author is simply saying that you can remove your consent if you don’t want to donate.  The point is that most people who would donate probably haven’t bothered to make it official.  Basically, I see it as a fight against apathy.

AdamC says:

10:03am | 17/10/11

Chris_D, I agree that apathy is the main reason that people do not donate organs. However, that is not an argument for an ‘opt out’ donation system.

Ultimately, either you think the government should be able to loot someone’s corpse for organs and tissues without consent or you do not. I am actually shocked than any democratic country has implemented a scheme that allows potentially unwanted organ harvesting. It’s hideously ghoulish, as much as anything else.

Benevolent Rapscallion says:

11:10am | 17/10/11

@ Super D - “It’s only fair that if you’re not prepared to donate your organs - which is entirely your right - then you should have no claim on the generosity of others. “

Some people, due to their medical history, are not eligible to donate their organs. Does that mean they are not entitled to donor organs?

Chris_D says:

02:51pm | 17/10/11

@Adam C, what makes you think the government is looting someone’s corpse for organs and tissues? 

I don’t know exactly how it works, but I’d say it’s more of a spur-of-the-moment choice for emergency workers to decide if an organ from a recently deceased person could be used to save another persons life.  It’s not some Govt conspiracy, it’s just a way we can help save someone elses life.

chungo mung says:

03:42pm | 17/10/11

@superD - at the point where the person is dead. Those blurred lines are technicalities, and if the life support machine is still on, or the person’s heart is still beating them they are not yet dead. Avoiding a topic due to complexities is copping out. And a market solution goes to none of your arguement, as it is clear that if the estate gains the power to sell your organs, the rights of the dead individual become null and void.

What are you really saying here? Is it about rights for the individual? Or is your stance comming from the perspective that any state power by default translates to a loss of individual rights whether you are dead, or whether your living relo’s retain those rights over your dead flesh.

Remember we are talking about an area of law where the rights of the dead person (for example to donate their body parts) can be overriden by those left behind if they so wish.

Essentially I am saying that there needs to more thought out debate and consideration on the ethics and responsibility involved here as the concept is new thus the beliefs and ethics need to be worked on before we find an appropriate approach. Old ideas do not always translate well to complicated new situations.

HeatherG says:

11:02am | 18/10/11

Chungo Mun: Actually, I do argue for legalised gay marriage and for refugess to be able to enter Australia legally, but I’d be against compulsory donation for the same reason I’d advocate for the others: self determinism (not to be confused with “selfish determinism”).

For the record, I am on the donor’s list. Of my kids, I have one adult son who isn’t and another who is. I respect both their choices.

Having said that, mild distinction: “opt out” isn’t the same as “compulsory”. Compulsory implies that “opt out” isn’t an option.

HeatherG says:

11:19am | 18/10/11

(apologies to Chungo Mung for inadvertently dropping the last g from his name. No offence intended.  )

Richard says:

08:39am | 17/10/11

Wrong. Organs aren’t just mechanical parts and once “your dead you don’t need them”. Organs are metaphysical aspects of your very being, and should not be swipped and swapped willy nilly on a whim.

If someone is so sick that they will die without the spiritual, mental and physical essence of another human being being transplanted into them, let them die! Its no the end of the world. Death is natural! Don’t be so afraid of it you want to chop open a corpse and plunder the precious essence of another being just to cling to life for a short while longer.

Mahhrat says:

09:06am | 17/10/11

Oh hi there Richard, I’ve fixed your banjo for you.  Try not to play so fast next time, okay?

SimonFromLakemba says:

09:37am | 17/10/11

Agree, I’m a registered organ donor and when im dead I say go for it, if I can save 4 or 5 people due to that, im all for it.

gobsmack says:

11:01am | 17/10/11

@Richard
“Organs are metaphysical aspects of your very being, and should not be swipped and swapped willy nilly on a whim.”
Yes, much better to incinerate them or feed them to the worms.

Patsy says:

08:09pm | 17/10/11

My family know I want my organs donated. I’d love to give kidneys to get people off dyalisis machines. I wouldn’t recommend my liver but, as tattoos are so expensive these days they’re welcome to my skin! I think of it like when I got a new fridge I put my old one on freecycle and gave it away.  I had no need to keep something that another person needed as a basic neccessity. Much like organs.

acotrel says:

07:39am | 17/10/11

@Emma
‘I am on the organ donation list it takes two minutes to fill out and they send you a card to keep in your wallet,’

If the card came wrapped in folding money, that might help ?

Fiona says:

08:16am | 17/10/11

In Qld you identify on your licence also, but family membersoften veto that, so the Medicare option is better, but you still do need to talk to your family about it, as they can still override.

Richard says:

08:59am | 17/10/11

Yes, I should hope so. I think I put YES to being a donor on my license, but after growing up and becoming less ignorant, I now know how bad organ donation is, so I’ve made it very clear to my family that my express wishes are to NEVER let my organs be plundered from my still warm corpse.

Jade says:

09:35am | 17/10/11

@ Fiona, they don’t do that any more here in QLD.

Kate says:

09:43am | 17/10/11

They don’t do it on your licence at all in Victoria. I assumed they would ask me when I went for my driver’s licence test, but they didn’t, so I registered via Medicare. You keep the card in your wallet with your licence anyway.
I let my family know, and I hope they would not be selfish enough to directly contradict my wishes if I was eligible to donate organs.

iMitchy says:

02:25pm | 17/10/11

I think we have established that Richard has opted out as is his right in whichever system Australia chooses to run. Is there anything else Richard? No? Okay. Then let’s move on.

I think Daniel’s use of the term “Compulsory” was an oversight. There seems to be quite a few people getting hung up on the whole “compulsory” thing. If you read past the title guys, you’ll find that there’s actually an article underneath it.
In this article Daniel goes on to explain that he is writing about an opt-out organ donation system rather than a compulsory one.
My only thought on the matter is that the start date would have to be delayed, precise and well publicised so those wanting to opt-out have ample time to do so before the system kicked in - just in case.

Some other points - there are already systems in place for prioritising organ receivals. More donors equals less people missing out equals less reliance on these guidelines - so don’t get hung up on that - it’s a seperate debate.
Also, there is no right or wrong when it comes to deciding whether to be a donor or not and it is nobody’s right to try to influence somebody one way or another. If you do or if you don’t, it is nothing to boast about or be judged for. And once again, there is already criteria for selection, let’s discuss it when it comes up rather than taking the focus off the opting systems debate.

Adam Diver says:

07:45am | 17/10/11

I was thinking that to. I think Daniel doesn’t know exactly what “compulsory” means. Having said that, an opt-out system is totally obvious.

centurion48 says:

07:53am | 17/10/11

Surely if you have signed up to the organ donor program then your wishes are fairly clear. I strongly object to family being able to overturn my wishes for my body parts.
I wish I could stipulate in my will that my beneficiaries can inherit my money or my body parts. If they don’t want my organs to go to somebody who can use them then my money can go to a charity that can use it. Seems fair. I am on both donor registries and donate plasma at the Blood Bank every two weeks. My intentions are clear.

Richard says:

09:11am | 17/10/11

No, I signed up to the organ donor program when I was 17 and just got my license, not even mature enough to make an informed decision. Now 12 years I am very much against organ donation, and my family have the RIGHT to ensure that my organs remain intact and in place after I die. One moment of immature foolishness when I was seventeen shouldn’t mean that someone else I don’t even know can steal my organs after death against my direct wishes as expressed by my family.

CBR says:

07:55am | 17/10/11

I think saving someone’s life is more important than the “giving” act and subsequent warm fuzzies.

Why did you opt out, out of curiosity?

Kate says:

09:54am | 17/10/11

But how can you experience the ‘warm fuzzies’ when you’re dead? You won’t know either way.

Anne_N says:

10:55am | 17/10/11

@ CBR

It’s a very very very rare person that does something purely selflessly.  The only carrot for the donor is the feeling (while I’m still alive Kate) that you may do a good thing for someone else.  It goes from “I’m gifting my organs” to “I’m being made to gift them” which illicits completely different emotions.  And this topic is a very emotive one.

Compulsory acquisition would preference another person’s entitlement to my bodily integrity just because I’m not using it anymore.  If they bring in that stick, I philosophically disagree and would opt out (also happy to opt out of receiving organs too).

Chris_D says:

03:00pm | 17/10/11

@Anne, what gives you the impression it is “compulsory”?  What the author is saying is that the default option is to give, but you only have to opt out if you don’t want to.

Tina says:

07:47am | 17/10/11

What a terrible experience! It must have been terrible for you and your family to try and say goodbye when doctors around are worried he doesnt die in time, basically kill him and then you have the coordinator high fiving about the prospect of receiving organs.

I really think the whole thing should be handled with the utmost respect for family and dying person. Obviously that is not happening. I dont blame you for changing your mind about donating.

Cynicised says:

11:18am | 17/10/11

Lee’s story is exactly ther reason why I strongly oppose the idea of any kind of opt out system. This is the reality of organ donation, which most peiople are blindingly ignorant about, this is what the process entails. Hospital procedures which gaurantee the organs are viable when harvested and transplanted mean that waiting for brain death is a common scenario. Let.s be clear here, it’s incredibly traumatic for loved ones, which is why they often veto the donation.
Sadly for those waiting for organs, the ghoulishness of the system and the sense of violation of the recently deceased who often only appear to be sleeping to their families, are very real. Because of the very nature of this procedure it is difficult to find a way around the problem.

old fart says:

11:30am | 17/10/11

did you stop to consider that they may have waited the twelve hours so that they could assmble the recipients around the country, plus the emergency transport for the organs whether it be plane car or both.  i’m sorry for your loss

Dan says:

12:54pm | 17/10/11

“As a result, I will not donate my organs, as I will not put my family through that drawn out and cruel process”

So basically you’re willing to sentence up to seven people to death because your family might be uncomfortable for a couple of hours? What a horrible excuse, lets hope someone in your family doesn’t need an organ - Karma is a bitch.

Cynicised says:

01:32pm | 17/10/11

@Dan. What an incredibly insensitive and judgmental comment. The pain that loved ones feel after this kind of experience cannot possibly be appreciated fully by those who have not been through it.
Also, what right have you to accuse anyone who chooses not to donate of “sentencing another seven peiople to death”? It’s this kind of guilting tactics which turn people off donation. It’s unacceptable and unethical. Like it or not we have the right to decide and the State should never take that from us.

Cynicised says:

01:32pm | 17/10/11

@Dan. What an incredibly insensitive and judgmental comment. The pain that loved ones feel after this kind of experience cannot possibly be appreciated fully by those who have not been through it.
Also, what right have you to accuse anyone who chooses not to donate of “sentencing another seven peiople to death”? It’s this kind of guilting tactics which turn people off donation. It’s unacceptable and unethical. Like it or not we have the right to decide and the State should never take that from us.

Lee Enfield says:

02:27pm | 17/10/11

Yep, I am more than happy to sentence up to 7 other people to death, if it means my family don’t have to go through this process again, family first. My mother is still having to deal with the fallout of his death, and the time in the hospital made a traumatic exeprience, even more so.

I am fully aware of why it takes up to 12 hours, fact is, having to answer the same questions over and over again because one organisation can’t pass the information on to another organisation, is riddiculous.

Having doubts, that still linger, about the quality of the care your father received from the doctors is another deterent. When we arrived at the hospital, we were taken aside into a room and told “he won’t make it,  will you donate his organs”. There was no information, no explanation.
It took the threat of vetoing any organ donation before the doctors could be bothered to explain what was wrong and why they wouldn’t try and save him,  and to answer any questions we had. When the doctors left the room, we were left with the feeling of, it is too hard to save him, and it would be easier to let him die and use his organs.  We were told it would be better for him to die, than live, because his quality of life would have been reduced. He would have suffered no loss of brain function, limb function or independence, but would have been severely scarred and not a complete man. 
Add to this the fact they clocked watched, and when it was looking likely he might live beyond the crucial 60minutes, they overdosed him with morphine, to “ease his pain”. I am certain the care he received was what was best for the potential organ recipients and the path of least resistance, and not what was best for him.

The fact is, the doctors did nothing to save his life based on quality of life opinions, not survivability. They could have tried to save his life, and still use the organs if they couldn’t. Instead they elected to do nothing but keep his body temperature between the range needed to ensure organ viability and keep him alive and pain free in a medically induced coma to keep the organs viable, in case the organs were damaged during the attempt to save his life.

The doctors did nothing to save his life and did what they had to do to end his life, to them, he was nothing more than a farm they wanted to harvest. No internal autopsy was performed, only an external, as any toxicology tests would have shown lethal amounts of morphine in his system.

No amount of bleeding heart propaganda will sway my decision, the system will have to go through significant changes before I will consent to organ donation.

Cate says:

12:49pm | 19/10/11

What? That fixes it for me.  Never will I ever consider it.
If I had any doubts, and they were huge than it won’t happen to me or anyone associated closely with me as family or friends.  If I have a say it will be stopped.  Like vultures circling overhead. You will never get over something like that.  They murdered your Father!  I can’t imagine the nightmares you are having.  I have worked in a hospital environment and they treat patients behind the scenes lab experiments.  Their attitude towards life is appalling.  If you’ve ever watched RPA the way they toss your insides about and that is on TV, just imagine when they are not being observed.
God bless your entire family.  Your information is invaluable and may the happy memories of your Father stay with you forever.  My worst nightmare would be to die in a hospital.
You only hear about the wonderful achievements, never about the stuffups.
PS - there are a few dedicated ones but very few.

Holly Northam says:

02:23pm | 25/03/12

Hello Lee, I am sorry to hear of your loss. I am a PhD student (and a nurse) and I am currently researching family experiences of making organ donation decisions. There is very little research in this area and your views are very important. It would be very helpful if you could contact me please at the University of Canberra. 02 62012135 or holly.northam@canberra.edu.au. Many thanks, Holly

Tina says:

08:09am | 17/10/11

I understand the basic sentiment. But does that apply for all life situations? I dont want to sound religious or so but what about being kind to someone else? If someone has not helped you when you had trouble do you refuse to help them as well? Or do you get over yourself and hope that your kindness will have a positive effect on the other person as well as yourself? If we crossed everyone off the list of receiving kindness, support and care because they have done something that makes them not deserve it, then there wouldnt be too many people left.

And what about criminals? Would you give your kidney to someone that has abused a child or is he off the list as well?

Ben C says:

08:34am | 17/10/11

@ Adsam

What about those that were born with blood conditions (I am one) that preclude us from donating blood or organs?

What about people who have lived in the UK between 1980 and 1997, who are now not allowed to donate blood because they may have eaten meat contaminated by mad cow disease? (Not sure if this applies to organs as well - can anyone clarify?)

These people would never donate because they are not allowed to. Is it disgusting for them to be happy to receive a transplant when needed?

maybe says:

12:48pm | 17/10/11

Ben C, yes it does apply to organs as well.  But the risk of vCJD and other TSEs is needs more condiseration if the organ/tissue you are receiving is life improving (like a conrea transplant) rather than life saving.

Ben C says:

02:15pm | 17/10/11

@ maybe

Thanks for clarifying.

Apart from the cornea, what other organs might blood-condition sufferers be able to donate? I can’t really think of many others, to be honest

Pudel says:

06:53pm | 17/10/11

The cornea (which is tissue not an organ) can be donated from people up to 100 years of age.  It has less blood flow, and can be kept in a soup mixture for up to a week before transplanting.  So there is no need for getting recipients organised.  Both my cornes have previously be used by other people.  A gift I will always value.

Cynicised says:

12:51pm | 17/10/11

As far as I’m aware, you and your family may stipulate which organs can be harvested when giving consent. However, if they do not, the harvest team will take everything which is transplantable, including skin and corneas. The reality is that it would be an unlikely scenario that there are no recipients waiting for any body part. Also, they are agreeing to transplantation into another person, not experimentation, or “donation to science” on the consent form, therfore any other use is ruled out.

Cynicised says:

12:51pm | 17/10/11

As far as I’m aware, you and your family may stipulate which organs can be harvested when giving consent. However, if they do not, the harvest team will take everything which is transplantable, including skin and corneas. The reality is that it would be an unlikely scenario that there are no recipients waiting for any body part. Also, they are agreeing to transplantation into another person, not experimentation, or “donation to science” on the consent form, therfore any other use is ruled out.

LJ Dots says:

06:19pm | 17/10/11

@Cry in my Gin

I see where you are coming from. I’m all for organ donations, but for some strange reason the idea that my eyes might be used in some way freaks me out and has always put me off donating. I know it is illogical, but there it is.

I checked out the Medicare organ donation section, they don’t have the right to harvest ‘everything’, you can specify which organs/tissue you are willing to offer and also whether or not they can be used for medical research. I’ll be signing up, I should have done it years ago.

Dr Nick Riviaira says:

04:55pm | 18/10/11

The current practice is, if you are an organ donor don’t expect the doctors to try to hard to save your life. If saving your life is more difficult than killing you for your organs and transplanting them into someone else, the doctors will simply do what they need to to keep your organs viable until a recipient can be found and bought in. Once that has happened they will let you die and help you die if don’t don’t die quick enough on your own.

Tina says:

08:04am | 17/10/11

They seriously do that? That is very weird. Doesnt the blood always get tested anyway? And what an attitude that every gay person is potentially infected.

acotrel says:

08:21am | 17/10/11

@Leopold
‘sexuality (or technically speaking sexual habit)? ‘

I suspect you are showing a bit of prejudice there !  What technology were you referring to ?

Leopold says:

08:33am | 17/10/11

@Tina, By the red cross website, any male to male sex automatically deferrs both men for 12 months, regardless of test results and whether protection was used. There is a blanket assumption that all gay men are unclean.

They don’t say the word gay, I’m figuring for discrimination technicalities. 

@acotrel, I am a rare blood type. Would happily donate it…. Alas, I am unclean.

TimB says:

08:42am | 17/10/11

Tina, I think it’s to do with risk factors. There’s a bunch of rules they have. From what I recall I think you can be disqualified if you have any tattoos (might be just recent ones).  If you lived in the UK during a certain timeframe (mad cow disease) you’re disqualified too.

They’re just playing it safe I guess. Which makes Leopold’s point interesting. Why do the Red Cross play it safer than the people who handle organ donation?

AFR says:

08:48am | 17/10/11

Blood donation is a whole other topic - I’m technically disqualified because I occassionaly choose to have completely “safe” sex with, er, “ladies of the night”, but I have never had an sti, more than i can say for many of my friends.

Tina says:

11:12am | 17/10/11

@ AFR

Ladies of the night he? At least you know the criteria. You dont want to rock up when its corporate blood donation day at your company and face something like this infront of everyone “So just standard procedure - are you over 50 kg, havent lived in the UK or enjoyed immoral encounters with loose women, potentionally full of stis and sinned in the eyes of God?”

AFR says:

12:03pm | 17/10/11

Tina, I suspect a lot of people simply lie on the forms.

Nic says:

03:39pm | 17/10/11

http://www.slate.com/id/2303599/

It’s not discrimination, it’s risk minimization. The blood gets tested but sometimes HIV and such come up after the testing, that’s the danger.

No it’s not a perfect world, but it’s done to help ensure people who have the blood donated to them have the best chance of life. Lowering our health standards for the sake of someone’s ego is ridiculous.

Michael says:

08:37am | 17/10/11

Ryan, you created your body from the nutrients taken from your mother, the nutrients provided to you through her from a primary producer somewhere, using land that belongs to the nation, subsidised by tax payers.

You wont get any further satisfaction from your organs once you are dead, hoarding the rotting filth in someplace does not edify your existence nor does it assist with creating a less selfish society.  In the face of death people are still all consumed with ideas of possession and materialistic constructs of self, even when that action is only a response to the idea that someone wants you to share something you cant use ...ever again.

acotrel says:

08:46am | 17/10/11

@RyaN
‘If you do manage to make it an opt-out system I can 100% guarantee I will opt out and go stand on the street signing people up to the opt-out merely because of chops like you! ‘

If we made a payment to your estate for your organs, would that change your thinking ?

RyaN says:

09:27am | 17/10/11

@acotrel: It is not about the money acotrel, its the fact that people want to lay claim to your organs without your consent that is horrific.

@Michael: So what you are saying is that some country somewhere that apparently owned the land where my mother lived, worked and contributed to the society owns both her and my bodies? Are you claiming that I and my mother were not tax payers and hence are possessions? Sorry I just cannot follow what you were trying to say in your first paragraph.

Michael says:

09:53am | 17/10/11

Ryan, my apologies i didn’t clearly articulate my thoughts.

I was trying to suggest that all of the things you have, take or will get are a result of the society you live in currently. The ability to consume the sustenance you needed to grow was provided by others, think of life as a cycle, you take what you need to survive, you live your life and contribute however you can to society then you die. If you take from the shared resources of the society and hoarde them in death, you have not returned what you borrowed.

The resources available on/in the Earth are finite, if these resources are not made available again for the remainder of us in society, we struggle more to provide for all with a shrinking resource pool.

Think recycling on a global level, recyle your organs into those that are living, recycle your cadaver into the natural cycle to be broken down to the basic building blocks like Carbon, Iron, Calcium so on and so on to be reused again as was intended or by accident, whatever you believe the case may be.

I hope this is a better explanation of what i was thinking.

RyaN says:

11:09am | 17/10/11

@Michael: Thanks for the explanation, I can agree with you on the finite resources side, just can’t agree with people being treated as a resource to be exploited.

Direct says:

11:21am | 17/10/11

Sounds good, Michael. Let’s let the pharmaceutical companies go into cemetaries, dig up the dead and grind their bones into Microcrystalline hydroxylapatite so they can sell it as a bone building supplement. It’s much better than calcium. Those dead people are using it and it’s only going to waste in the ground.

Michael says:

12:17pm | 17/10/11

Direct, i understand that the trials on that substance are very positive but the source is from young cattle, i have no idea if the same would be as efficient or as bioavailable from the dead, do you?

If the dead were dug up, the problem could be that the biodegradation of said substance would make the whole exercise pointless, also the cadaver would need to be embalming chemical free no?

Good questions, i hope those in the know can answer you and I.

maybe says:

12:54pm | 17/10/11

soylent green…IS PEOPLE!!!!

Richard says:

10:08am | 17/10/11

No, that is necessary. The family knew the deceased the best, they ought to be able veto organ donation (yet they should NOT be allowed acquiesce to organ donation requests).

Al says:

11:26am | 17/10/11

Richard:
Sorry?
You are saying that if a person has indicated they want to participate then their family can override them but if the person has made no indication then the family CAN’T allow it to occur?
Why should a family be able to overide a persons decision as to what occurs to their body once they die? (Maybe its on religous grounds that the actual person did not hold, but hey we can ignore their wishes right).

Cynicised says:

03:40pm | 17/10/11

The families have the right of veto because they have legal custody of the body after death, not the hospital. They have the right the to decide on disposal, as long as it’s legal in this country. Ie street cremation is illegal.

Morally, they also have the right to decide on anther they agree to organ donation because they are the ones who will have to live with their grief. As the pro donation pushers keep reiterating, the deceased person will not be affected, but I assure you, the relatives will.

It’s a vexed issue which sounds fine in theory,and many relatives who do agree to dantion have the satisfaction of knowing that their loved one’s death was not in vain if by donation others get to live. For many this assuaged grief to some extent. For others, as I’ve said, the grief and misgivings are far too profound to agree when faced with the reality,or their religious/spiritual beliefs forbid it. That is their right.

Lee Enfield says:

07:34am | 19/10/11

The problem with removing the veto by families, is that it gives the doctors too much power. If families can’t veto the decision, it means doctors can decide to let someone die and harvest their organs because saving that persons life is harder than peforming a transplant, without any consequences.
However if families have the power to veto, they can prevent the doctors

Josh Simmons says:

01:41pm | 25/10/11

@Lee Enfield
Sorry, but do you actually have any evidence of this? I read your earlier comment but while it sounds unpleasant has there been any formal investigation leading to any formal assessments. Basing arguments on emotion always leads to trouble.

Why exactly is it necessary for families to be able to veto my decision, I’ve made an assessment of a situation, fuck what my family thinks. None of my family would veto such a decision (I hope, anyway), but the idea of it is horrific.

Let’s remember too, doctors are not “harvesting” your organs so they can keep them for themselves in their dastardly science lairs, the entire point is to save lives. Prematurely ending your life for the sake of another is somewhat counter-intuitive.

When you say no to organ donation based on it being too hard on the family what you’re saying is you want somebody else’s family to suffer as well.

Kate says:

10:03am | 17/10/11

Okay, but are you also against medication, surgery, chemotherapy etc? It sounds like you are arguing that we never try to prolong anybody’s life by any means.

Richard a.k.a. dickmojo says:

01:05pm | 17/10/11

I’m with you 100% JS.

And no Kate, it doesn’t mean we are also against medication and surgery (although I would certainly be reluctant to undergo chemotherapy in its current state. The idea that taking large doses of deadly poison is going to increase someone’s health seems dubious to me, depending on circumstances of course. People’s own natural immune systems have specialist cells called NK cells: Natural Killer cells, who roam the body mopping up cancer cells. Were I to develop cancer, I would be trying to aid and assist the activity of these NK cells first before even considering taking the deadly poison of chemotherapy).

Prolonging life naturally is one thing, but messing about with the spiritual destinies of unique beings is another thing entirely. Death isn’t the end, so why fear it so much that you potentially mess up the next stage in the journey of your life-soul?

Josh Simmons says:

01:44pm | 25/10/11

@Richard Well that’s between you and your sky fairy, feel free to opt out. But don’t use your theories to constrict the choice of others.

SimonFromLakemba says:

09:51am | 17/10/11

I agree tentitively with what you are saying, but I think schools isnt a place for an external group.

You can see in America with the Army etc recruiting kids or different groups.

Making people aware of it in a human science course or something could be beneficial I think.

Richard says:

10:13am | 17/10/11

Disgusting idea fairsfair, so basically you just want to push your ideology down young people’s throats, barely old enough to think for themselves, let alone do any deep and profound thinking on the issue, and then basically pressure them through threat of peer embarassment into signing up for a macabre, giger-eque potential demise.

fairsfair says:

10:57am | 17/10/11

Richard you have every right to be buried/cremated with your organs intact. If that is your “ideology” that is totally ok. There is nothing disgusting about people talking about the realities of life.

The blood bank are allowed in there, why can’t a representative perform a talk, leave the literature behind with something for the kids to have a chat about amongst themselves and with their parents?

Have you ever been through the process? It is far from macarbe. Yes it is confronting in its treatment of emotion - but it has to be. There are many lives at stake and a brief window to act. Last thing that the professions should have to deal with is the “what would he have wanted” discussion. That should be had while people are alive and in charge of their own fate.

Dave says:

12:59pm | 19/10/11

@fairsfair, I agree with the other comments that school might not be the time and place to do it, but I do agree with your underlying point - getting the question ‘do you want to donate your organs’ to more people will most likely result in more people agreeing to be organ donors!
Perhaps when a person is added to the electoral roll (ie they’ve turned 18, or become an Australian citizen), they could have organ donor paperwork sent to them with their electoral enrolment? At that point they’re legally an adult, and (presumably) of sufficiently sound mind to make a considered decision.

Richard says:

09:55am | 17/10/11

Hear hear, this is the way of the future. Focus on this on stop pushing your macabre campaign to raid people’s corpses like pirates, you sick drones.

Al says:

10:41am | 17/10/11

Dancan, only real issue would be what is the reason for the transplant organ?
If it is due to a shutdown based on the bodies own genetics a cloned organ will not resolve the issue.

As an example, you can’t simply clone a pancreas for a type 1 diabetes suffer and expect it to work because the reason the origninal doesn’t perform properly is base largely on their genetics, so the new organ will be just as efficent as the old.

dancan says:

01:02pm | 17/10/11

Hmmm.  That is a good point Al regarding genetic traits being carried over to the clone.  But perhaps there would be a way to block that certain trait, a quick google search brings up a very limited number of articles involving human organ cloning, so without the research we’ll never know. 

I’m going to pose this question over at ask a scientist dot com and see what answer comes back.

But genetic problems aside there are a number of other reasons why a person would require an organ transplant, in these situations cloning would present a real option.

Richard says:

01:14pm | 17/10/11

What a stupid analogy, Al. You can’t transplant someone else’s pancreas into a type 1 diabetes sufferer either, because their immune system is just going to kill all the islet cells in the new pancreas anyway.

Al says:

01:40pm | 17/10/11

Richard, I am not saying that your wrong but perhaps you could explain why the researches in the field have been putting out the myth of cloning as a cure for type 1 diabetes for ages now (at least 2 decades).
There are others as well, how about a person with a gentic abnormality causing an enlarged heart.
Clone that and guess what you get, another enlarged heart.

Direct says:

11:26am | 17/10/11

Might be time to bring old style wakes, laying out the dead in the family home for a week or so to see whether they will wake up.

RyaN says:

11:43am | 17/10/11

Just think that Quebec woman whose family refused the organ donation against her organ donation wishes saved her life. Just imagine that they took away the right for the family to have the final say, this woman would have been perfectly healthy and alive and carved up like in a butcher shop.

Shane says:

12:02pm | 17/10/11

Hmmm, dictatorial scum bag. Hysterical, much?

Going by that, and @Richard’s other rantings, I guess we can all be glad that no part of Richard will be hanging around when he’s dead. I will be glad to see such an unpleasant type off - fully intact.

Anonymous says:

12:40pm | 17/10/11

Shut up. If you don’t agree to have your organs donated despite the fact that you’ll be dead, it’s solid proof that you’re either a self-serving bastard, or a nut.

I don’t agree that organ donation should be compulsory, but I definitely think that people who refuse to donate their organs for belief reasons should be publicly named and shamed for the selfish pricks that they are. It’s time to get real and start working together for the good of everyone.

Richard says:

04:40pm | 17/10/11

Not all all, Anonymous. See its this profound ignorance and shallow thinking that allows totalitarian and dictatorial ideas to thrive. If you’d bothered to read the links of posted, you’d see that the medical fact is that organs aren’t just mechanical objects that can be swapped between people without consequence.

Organs have life of their own: they memories, tastes, preferences, personalities of their own. What makes us who we are, our identity, is derived from our mind. But our “mind” isn’t solely a function of our brain. Read those links, they proves that our organs also constitute and contribute to the phenomen we call “mind”.

So, when you say that I’m being selfish for refusing to donate my heart if I die; well, am I also selfish for not wanting to donate my brain if I die? If not, why not? Why is it different between donating my heart and donating my brain? If you read those links, you’ll see that both organs contribute to creating our “mind”. As does the Kidneys, as does the Liver, as do ALL organs (particularly the 5 primary Zang organs).

This prevalent conception of the body and of physiological as being a mechanical phenomenon is fundamentally flawed. All physical function, and all physiological processes, are not soley mechanical. They incorporate mental and spiritual dimensions as well. And any approach to medicine that totally ignores these dimensions is unforgivably narrow and inadequate.

Anonymous says:

09:12am | 18/10/11

Richard,

There is no proven study that organs incorporate spiritual elements. Let’s move away from your crystal-hugging pseudoscience and stick to the facts we know, Richard.

I do know that there are documented cases of transplanted organs that get rejected by new hosts. A ALSO know that many people have been given donated organs which have NOT been rejected and have gone on to lead long and happy lives they otherwise wouldn’t have been able to live if it weren’t for someone’s generosity.

For the record, I plan on donating everything when I die. My liver, kidneys, heart, brain, skeleton, EVERYTHING. Because I won’t need it. If my organs get rejected, so be it. At least I took steps to improve someone’s life.

Tina says:

11:16am | 17/10/11

That is very easy for you to say. Your own sacred body is not failing you. But what do you say to the person that needs a kidney or dies next week? “Sorry but my kidney is too sacred to give it to you”

Anonymous says:

04:01pm | 17/10/11

That’s your opinion, and your opinion sucks.

Let’s take your precious god out of the picture for a moment and assume that NATURE and GENES have resulted in the human body. Because of pure luck, not divine will, some people draw the short straw and are born without properly working livers, have failing hearts, etc. Me for instance. My lungs don’t work as they should. My only crime was that I’m too tall and thin. Others might’ve just been walking to work one day and by pure dumb luck got hit by a car. Their organs have ruptured and thing that can save them is a transplant.

You argue that the purity of the human body is something that should be defended, with from your religious belief being the basis of your stance, here’s the deal: Nature is a bitch. Nature is unfair, and thousands upon thousands of people’s hopes and dreams are held back because of a crippling organ deficiency. When someone dies, they are no longer able to pursue their hopes or dreams. THEY ARE DEAD. They don’t need their organs anymore. While extracting the organs from a corpse is indeed unnatural, I say it’s raising a big middle finger towards nature. Nature stinks, and with technologies available to us these days, we can rise above it and reach our full potential.

If I’m ever in a position where I can no longer follow my hopes and dreams, It should be my damn responsibility to make sure some other unfortunate sap can follow theirs.

Kika says:

04:34pm | 17/10/11

How selfish. Do you think Jesus would agree with you? Instead of saving lives you want to let your parts rot or burn in thinking that they matter on the other side. Wouldn’t Jesus prefer you to do what you can to help others because selfless acts were pretty valued by him, I think. I mean if you want to be high and mighty and act like a Pharisee, go ahead. But I would daresay the man himself wouldn’t give a rats whether your body has your liver or not. I mean he himself sacrificed his body for ALL of our sins. If he cared about his body being intact do you like he’d let the Romans torture himself like that? I doubt it. The body vs the soul. I seem to think the soul is the bit important and the body is all but a vessel.

A Dose of Reality says:

05:56pm | 17/10/11

Kika,

No one cares what you think your fairy friend thinks.

There should be a version of Godwins rule - first twat to invoke a superstition as a reason for something automatically ‘loses’ both the argument - and the ‘right’ to post.

Everyone owns their own bodies - it is the first thing we think of as ‘mine’.

If you want an increase in donations you only have the option to ‘request’.  There will never be any option to demand.  It is fundamentally dictatorial.

LJ Dots says:

06:55pm | 17/10/11

@Andrew, and that is your choice which I can appreciate and respect, you are free to do as you wish for whatever reason. However, the argument is whether this alternative may increase organ donations that are lacking purely through apathy or lack of knowledge of how the system works.

@A Dose of Reality, I believe Kika was using Andrew’s religious theme to point out the hypocrisy of his stance, not to advocate ‘fairy friends’. Please correct me if I am wrong Kika.

Cate says:

12:41pm | 17/10/11

I understand your anger, however to generalise that “all” - of the young? Is quite severe. All ages and types of people are guilty of these behaviours. It sounds like you are virtually stating that your Brother in Laws childen are going to turn out as per your last paragraph. I know you wouldn’t mean to do this. I would perhaps dilute this a little.  I suppose you have gone through the whole family to see if any of their kidneys may be a match. So I won’t ask.  A kidney can be donated by a living person if there is a match.  I sincerely hope your Brother in Law receives a special gift and recovers.
The wounds very fresh in your memory about terminal illness, road death etc.  I can relate.  One thing that cannot solve it is anger, and I wish it could. It only takes away your strength and compassion for others.  You do have to let the anger and the unfairness of it all out.  It won’t ever totally go away, but it will be less raw.
This is not a lecture, it is a life experience I have had.  Keep up positivity and hope for your ill B I L. He would rather you smile than frown.
It would be beneficial if you wrote the the PBS to push for better support of the medical treatment as this has been ignored. Life saving drugs are very expensive as the Pharmaceutical Companies control the distribution and price.  This needs to change, and all these medications need to be a basic right, especially when the technology is there.  Lobby as I have and send emails and letters to your MPs Health Ministers and Pharmaceutical Companies.  Put it out there in the Public Domain.  I go without a lot to pay for the medications I need, I can’t afford them. This should not happen to any Australian citizen.  I have gone off topic, sorry but I felt a little support might help.  Be safe.

Giraffe says:

12:38pm | 17/10/11

Jade,

You have every right to think that way. There’s no such thing as the ‘right way to think’, despite what the idealogues would have you believe. Personally I disagree with you and see absolutely no reason not to donate my organs once I’m gone, but each to their own.

The only thing I really believe is it should be an ‘opt out’ system rather than ‘opt in’ and it should work both ways. If you ‘opt out’ of the system then you lose your right to recieve donated organs ahead of someone who is in.

Jade says:

03:15pm | 17/10/11

Hopefully I am never in the position to need someone’s organs, but I am not sure I would want them either depending on the situation.  In saying the above, I would be quiet happy to give someone close to me a kidney while I am still alive if they needed it.

Cate says:

01:48pm | 17/10/11

It came from a poor unfortunate cow. I don’t wish anyone ill health.  Many valves now are man made I wonder what the difference is for his.

Kika says:

01:02pm | 17/10/11

A lot of people do apparently. Especially when they haven’t discussed it or agreed on it prior. A lot of tragic sudden deaths of young people end up with families too grief stricken to think about donation.

RyaN says:

01:11pm | 17/10/11

Lucky this lady’s family did, she is alive today because they intervened.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2745308/posts

Cate says:

02:02pm | 17/10/11

I wouldn’t feel comfortable receiving a departed beings organs.  If they were able to donate and remain alive that’s OK with me.  I’d reciprocate.  Blood, kidney, part liver, bone marrow etc.  Especially if it were my family even giving skin for grafts if it was required.  As soon as we are born, we are beginning to die.  That is nature.  It is not a matter of if, but when.  I sometimes feel that people who work in these fields of medecine loose the sense of what humanity is.  They are very clever, but sometimes play god.

Tina says:

01:24pm | 17/10/11

“the last time you checked” - So when was the last time you died and knew what happened then?

Kika says:

02:11pm | 17/10/11

Your family can still veto against it once you’re gone apparently. You need to tell your family first what your intentions are no matter what.

Tina says:

01:27pm | 17/10/11

I wonder if you have not “opted out” because you couldnt be bothered and you are about to die or already dead, can you or family then still say no, or will they then forcefully take what they need?

NigelC says:

01:29pm | 17/10/11

So basically some people are too lazy to make a decision and want to pile-on additional pressure to grieving relatives in the case of their death.

That sort of weak-willed approach is exactly why we need an opt-out system.

Eye4anEye says:

05:23pm | 17/10/11

Not sure if that was aimed at me NigelC but I’ll bite anyway. I have made a choice (I would rather not donate organs because in all honesty the thought of it creeps me out somewhat). However once I’m dead I want my family to do whatever they think best without my view prejudicing them. I’ve spoken with my immediate family about it so they are aware and can think about what they’d prefer without havning a last minute decision being forced upon them.

I also think lazy weak willed people are generally less of a detriment to society than opinionated self righteous pricks which is why we shouldn’t have an opt out system.

Richard says:

07:20pm | 17/10/11

And see, to all the unbiased, neutral, rational folks out there, see what the argument for an ‘Opt-out’ system is based on? Its based on abuse and disrespect for the people that have actually thought deeply on this issue and come to a conclusion at odds with the trite, shallow, dogmatic conventional wisdom.

Karlos, you are extremely ignorant, and immature, just like the writer of this article is. In 10 years time, I challenge you guys to do some really really deep research on this issue, and in 10 years time, I dare you to hold onto the same narrow dogmatic position you now cling to.

Karlos says:

04:02pm | 18/10/11

Richard, I have read a few of your other posts now. I didn’t realise I was dealing with a kook. Sorry. My mistake.

I’m going to email this snip from one of your posts to my nuerosurgeon mates so they can have a good laugh. - “Organs have life of their own: they memories, tastes, preferences, personalities of their own. What makes us who we are, our identity, is derived from our mind. But our “mind” isn’t solely a function of our brain. Read those links, they proves that our organs also constitute and contribute to the phenomen we call “mind”.”

Nice articles you linked to as well. Very rigorous in their scientific method. Tell you what - when they are peer reviewed and published in a credible medical journal, lets talk. Until then, all they “prove” is that some people spend an inordinate amount of time and creative capital writing absurd things about stuff they don’t understand.

How have I been ignorant and immature? And how is an Opt Out system based on abuse and disrespect? Thats just a ridiculous statement. If you don’t want to donate your organs, just register that wish and it’s done. Nothing could be more respectful or lacking in “abuse”.

And by the way, I could wait 50 years before i do “deep research” on this issue and human offal still won’t have turned itself into a distributed memory network capable of downloading the personality of a human being into the mind of another.

Timinane says:

08:51pm | 17/10/11

Dear person making biased assumption on does of us who don’t want to donate organs.

1) Learn why we don’t want to.

I have an objection to the suppression of the immune system required so the new organ doesn’t get destroyed by the bodies immune system.
I’d be willing to look when science marches on but until then I will object.

My organs will be nice feed for the bacteria that rots the body.

Want to make people fill sorry by using an incurable kid.
I was a kid with an incurable disorder, the bad luck of having a genome that didn’t tell my body to produce enough factor VIII for blood to clot properly. My best hope for a cure is either a genetic retrovirus to change that genome so it will or nano-spiders that would hopefully be used for haemostasis.

I have an excellent immune system, it beat of the Hep C the treatment gave me though luck had me survive the AIDS epidemic. Which killed off many others with the same disability. I cherish the immune system and don’t want people to willingly wreck it.

marley says:

06:00am | 18/10/11

Timinane - if you don’t want your own immune system suppressed, then obviously you will refuse any opportunity for a transplant.  But do you have the right to make that decision for someone else?  An immune system isn’t much good to anyone if he’s died of heart or renal failure.

CBR says:

03:10pm | 17/10/11

“Daniel, Exactly what, other than to teach us how to destroy the English language, Australia’s version of it & Australian slang just what has kevin Rudd contributed to Australia?”

I think you’re doing a good enough job on your own..

(I actually agree with the meat of our argument. I have had an informed discussion with my parents as to my wishes regarding donations, and theirs as well, and they will respect those wishes.)

Kate says:

08:09pm | 17/10/11

I know what you mean, Robert, and I struggle with this too. I’m an organ donor, but I don’t really like the idea of my organs going to somebody really horrible, or someone who will just abuse their new organs (eg an alcoholic who continues drinking after a liver transplant).
I guess you have to cross your fingers and hope your organs go to someone deserving.

Karlos says:

05:50pm | 17/10/11

Wow. Max. Big call there hombre. You’re right though. That 6 year old who needs a new heart - what a callous little prick hey?

And have you considered that what people on the donor list are actually hoping for is that when, inevitably, someone does die, that that person has chosen to be a donor? You know, as opposed to the desire that someone specific, or people in general, die so that they may live.

It’s an interesting spin to put on it though. Argumentative and cruel, but interesting.

So is the whole “nature has intended you to die” thing. And the fact we should fatalistcally accept that inevitable destiny. Who or what exactly is “Nature” Max? Is a drunk running into your car and the door handle crushing your kid’s liver something nature intended?

Hope I’ve answered your question and made you feel like the schmuck you so obviously are.

Richard says:

06:55pm | 17/10/11

Karlos, you are wrong, and the schmuck. It is Max who is correct. When people are sitting around on the organ transplant list, hoping for an organ to come available, what they’re really hoping for is for a healthy person and can die so a sick person can live (for a little bit longer). Whether they realise this or not, that’s what they’re implicitly hoping for. Pretending otherwise doesn’t make the reality any less unpalatable when you look at it for what it is, thus proving you to be the Schmuck, Karlos, and Max to correct.

marley says:

07:36pm | 17/10/11

@Richard - of course the sick person wants a transplant.  So what?  Why should the life of a person killed in an auto accident be wasted, when his organs can give life to another person?  The organs serve the donor (and his family) no purpose but they can help the recipient.  Which is more selfish - to wish for the transplant from someone who cannot use it any more, or to deny something you no longer need to someone who can use it?

Max power says:

10:00am | 18/10/11

Sorry kalos you have done no such thing.

Everyday people on the donor list wake up in the hope that they receive a phone call saying an organ has become available. To put that in straight text, everyday people on the donor list wake up in the hope that they receive a call saying, you have got your wish, someone else has died so you can live.
Everyday the family members of someone on the donor list, wake up in the hope that they receive a phone call saying, an organ has become available. To put that in straight text,  everyday the family members wake up in the hope that someone elses family has to go through the pain of losing a loved one so that they don’t.
Those people on the donor list and their families hope, wish, pray, that someone else dies so that they can live, someone elses family has to suffer the pain of loss, so that they don’t.
You can sugar coat the reality as much you like, you can name call all you like, wishing and hoping for an organ, is a politcally correct way of wishing and hoping for someone to die.

The truth is, people and their families who choose not to donate, do not hope that someone else dies. People and families who want/need organs do hope that someone else dies. Hmmm, who are the selfish ones again?

Karlos says:

03:40pm | 18/10/11

Max, Richard, if you two are incapable of making the distinction between hoping for an organ and wishing for the death of an innocent life then neither of you have the intellect necessary for the discussion. To then extend your simplistic reduction further into the absurd you suggest that the person who needs a donor organ in order to live is as selfish in their hope as someone who refuses to allow their own organs to save a life once they themselves have died. Sadly, you haven’t the wit to recognize the emotive irrationality in your position.

Max Power says:

04:42pm | 18/10/11

So let me get this right, if you die and don’t donate your organs you are selfish because you don’t need them.
So where does this philosphy of selfishness finish, is it just related to organs, or is it applicable to anything you don’t need.
For example, if you have a house with 4 bedrooms and only need two, does it make you selfish if you don’t give your spare rooms to people who need them, afterall you don’t need them.
If you own 3 houses, but only live in one, does it make you selfish for not giving them to someone who needs them, afterall you don’t need them.
If you own two cars and only need one, does it make you selfish if you don’t give it to someone who does need it, afterall you don’t need it.

Kalos; The fact is, hoping for an organ is akin to hoping someone dies, you can’t have one without the other. Hoping for an organ is a far more palatable, politically correct and touchy feely way of saying, you are hoping for someone to die.

Karlos says:

09:00am | 19/10/11

Talk to the hand Max. I’m not wasting any more time with your juvenile “logic”.

Jess says:

12:52pm | 12/11/11

@Max Power. I think you have forgotten that whether or not someone’s organs are donated to a person in need, they are still dead. People die, thousands die every single day and every single one of those people has the opportunity to prevent more death. Donating organs doesn’t mean more people die, or that sick dying people waiting for transplants are just sitting there wishing death on those around them. It simply means that someone else’s incredible loss can contribute to someone else not having to lose their loved one.

marley says:

09:21pm | 17/10/11

@A Does - well, I’d say there’s a demand because organ transplant is possible.  Fifty years ago, it wasn’t.  And no, I doubt seriously that bad food accounts for the daughter of a friend of mine, diagnosed at age three with idiopathic pulmonary dysfunction, requiring a heart-lung transplant.  Sometimes, bad stuff happens.  And now, unlike a century ago, there’s something we can do about it.