4 ms·

I completely agree. I live in the UK, I’ve been a registered organ donor for as long as I can remember. I’ve opted out. I’m not a bag of parts that belongs t

by Lio 6y ago

I completely agree. I live in the UK, I’ve been a registered organ donor for as long as I can remember. I’ve opted out. I’m not a bag of parts that belongs to an all powerful state.

kelnos 6y ago
I think it's a bit much to punish someone in need because you're angry that your government made a bad policy choice.
- grecht 6y ago
  He’s not punishing someone in need. Nobody has a right to someone else’s organs, however life-saving they may be. The fundamental idea of a ”donation“ is that it’s voluntary.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Lio 6y ago
    Thank you that’s far more eloquent than I could have put it.
  - nerdponx 6y ago
    I think it's a bit much to voluntarily withhold lifesaving treatment for someone in need because you're angry that your government made a bad policy choice.
    - Lio 6y ago
      I respect your opinion but I don’t want my family to be pressurised with that view at the time of my death. It’s one thing to ask if they will help someone in need and another to say “we’re doing this are you going to stop us?” By opting out, when I was previously on the donor list, I can spare them that. You might say it will be handled more tactfully but there’s historical precedent that it won’t be. This is an unpopular opinion but I feel compelled to express it; I think this law is wrong. There should have been more debate and finesse used in the drafting of it.
      - nerdponx 6y ago
        I don't know why my family should have a say either. I guess it's pressuring them in a way, but dying generally puts pressure on one's family regardless. Cremated, buried, put out to sea on a flaming raft, whatever. Who cares if the corpse I left behind is short an eyeball, a couple tendons, and a liver? More importantly, if those body parts can be used to save someone else's life, I don't believe they should even have the right to care. People who are still alive and need an organ to survive are more important than whatever squeamishness and perception of agency my family might have. The concern that doctors could theoretically let people die more easily to get their organs is another matter entirely, but that's not the topic in this sub-thread.
  - berdario 6y ago
    The Right to Health is an inalienable human right. I suppose "organ donation" might be better phrased as "organ recovery" then? You can't use it anymore, and it would go to waste... Hence it should be recovered. People might not have a right to have your own organs specifically, but it's society's duty to implement organ recovery. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to provide for everyone's human rights.
    - barry-cotter 6y ago
      This thought process is why the idea of positive rights is incoherent.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - AdrianB1 6y ago
      The right to health is completely made up; bacteria, viruses and cancer don't honor this right and doctors and drug makers don't work for free, so this right and a few similar ones (right to Internet, for example) are just pulled out of someone's rear parts. That being said, it cannot be used as an argument in a civilized discussion between adults.
      - barry-cotter 6y ago
        So are all the other rights. > Death: Yes. As practice, you have to start out learning to believe the little lies. > Susan: So we can believe the big ones? > Death: Yes. Justice, mercy, duty. That sort of thing. > Susan: They're not the same at all! > Death: You think so? Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve and THEN show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet... you try to act as if there is some ideal order in the world. As if there is some... some rightness in the universe by which it may be judged. https://www.quotes.net/mquote/1016567 https://www.quotes.net/mquote/1016567
- Badfood 6y ago
  Well put
- Lio 6y ago
  It’s not an easy thing to do and not an easy thing to say out loud but I _am_ angry about it and there’s not much else I can do. Do we have agency over our own bodies or not? How can I keep that agency and help someone under an opt-out system? That has been taken from me when better, workable opt-in solutions weren’t tried. To take it to extremes, should the government be able to take “spare” kidneys from live donors? Should criminals be forced to donate blood? What about children that die in child birth, should they be harvested for organs too? ‘Cause the NHS were doing that at one time.[1] Where does the line stop? 1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1136723.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1136723.stm
  - zimpenfish 6y ago
    > Do we have agency over our own bodies or not? Right up until the point it's no longer your own body because you're dead, yes. > To take it to extremes, should the government be able to take “spare” kidneys from live donors? No, they're not dead. > Should criminals be forced to donate blood? No, but again, they're not dead. > What about children that die in child birth should they be harvested for organs too? The law only covers adults with the opt-out which would make this another no. > Where does the line stop? Pretty much exactly where the law says it does - "All adults in England will be considered as having agreed to donate their own organs when they die unless they record a decision not to donate (known as ‘opting out’) or are in one of the excluded groups." [edit: Missed the A in "All"]
    - AdrianB1 6y ago
      The line is pushed a bit every time. This time is there, but the history tells us it is not stopping and the next step is scary.
  - kaba0 6y ago
    But this is a moral dilemma, where a slightly less ethical choice WILL dramatically increase another variable that is widely regarded as good. And it’s not like it is forced, especially with the family being able to “stop” it even when it happens. The status quo was a different tradeoff.
  - 6y ago
- DoreenMichele 6y ago
  Organ donation gets a lot of razzle dazzle press. I think we should put more effort into other things. Rejection is horrifying and can be deadly. Donated organs can introduce deadly infections. If all goes well, you will be on anti rejection meds the rest of your life. It's not the magic cure all with no downside that people often seem to imagine.
  - ChefboyOG 6y ago
    ...what? Is there some media conspiracy pushing unnecessary organ transplants on people that I'm unaware of? I don't think anyone gets a liver transplant because of an article in Goop. I imagine that in most cases, they do it because they're going to die without it.
    - ekianjo 6y ago
      And they still have a great likelihood to die even after.
      - kaba0 6y ago
        So, after a heart attack we should not try to do CPR on you because you have a great likelihood to die either way, do I get it right? You might want to look into the definition of odds.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - DoreenMichele 6y ago
      It's really a lot more complicated than that. But I think it's time for me to walk away from this discussion.
  - kaba0 6y ago
    All of these things are vastly better than dying due to a failed organ... and it’s not like other choices are not seeked. Should we not extend the life of so many children, because in 10 years there may be a better option?
- ekianjo 6y ago
  Punish who exactly?
rwmj 6y ago
> I’m not a bag of parts that belongs to an all powerful state. Aside from the fact that this statement is wrong - the state can conscript you if there's a war, or imprison you - I'm wondering what actual objection you have to donating parts of your body after you are dead? Personally speaking once I'm dead, I'm not going to care in the slightest.
- Lio 6y ago
  I have no objection to organ donation at all. I think the idea that someone might see with my eyes after my death to be a beautiful one and I’ve been a lifelong card carrying organ donor. I object to presumed consent. A gift is not a gift if it’s not freely given.
  - sammax 6y ago
    Sounds a bit like you weren't an organ donor because it's the right thing but because it makes you feel good. And now that good feeling is taken away from you because everyone is an organ donor by default and you're not doing anything special anymore.
    - Lio 6y ago
      Does it? I think you’re twisting my words a bit there. My aim was simply to answer the parent’s claim that I might have an issue with organ transplant and that’s not the case. > because it’s the right thing “What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so”

by Lio 6y ago

I completely agree. I live in the UK, I’ve been a registered organ donor for as long as I can remember. I’ve opted out. I’m not a bag of parts that belongs to an all powerful state.

kelnos 6y ago

I think it's a bit much to punish someone in need because you're angry that your government made a bad policy choice.

grecht 6y ago
He’s not punishing someone in need. Nobody has a right to someone else’s organs, however life-saving they may be. The fundamental idea of a ”donation“ is that it’s voluntary.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Lio 6y ago
  Thank you that’s far more eloquent than I could have put it.
- nerdponx 6y ago
  I think it's a bit much to voluntarily withhold lifesaving treatment for someone in need because you're angry that your government made a bad policy choice.
  - Lio 6y ago
    I respect your opinion but I don’t want my family to be pressurised with that view at the time of my death. It’s one thing to ask if they will help someone in need and another to say “we’re doing this are you going to stop us?” By opting out, when I was previously on the donor list, I can spare them that. You might say it will be handled more tactfully but there’s historical precedent that it won’t be. This is an unpopular opinion but I feel compelled to express it; I think this law is wrong. There should have been more debate and finesse used in the drafting of it.
    - nerdponx 6y ago
      I don't know why my family should have a say either. I guess it's pressuring them in a way, but dying generally puts pressure on one's family regardless. Cremated, buried, put out to sea on a flaming raft, whatever. Who cares if the corpse I left behind is short an eyeball, a couple tendons, and a liver? More importantly, if those body parts can be used to save someone else's life, I don't believe they should even have the right to care. People who are still alive and need an organ to survive are more important than whatever squeamishness and perception of agency my family might have. The concern that doctors could theoretically let people die more easily to get their organs is another matter entirely, but that's not the topic in this sub-thread.
- berdario 6y ago
  The Right to Health is an inalienable human right. I suppose "organ donation" might be better phrased as "organ recovery" then? You can't use it anymore, and it would go to waste... Hence it should be recovered. People might not have a right to have your own organs specifically, but it's society's duty to implement organ recovery. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to provide for everyone's human rights.
  - barry-cotter 6y ago
    This thought process is why the idea of positive rights is incoherent.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - AdrianB1 6y ago
    The right to health is completely made up; bacteria, viruses and cancer don't honor this right and doctors and drug makers don't work for free, so this right and a few similar ones (right to Internet, for example) are just pulled out of someone's rear parts. That being said, it cannot be used as an argument in a civilized discussion between adults.
    - barry-cotter 6y ago
      So are all the other rights. > Death: Yes. As practice, you have to start out learning to believe the little lies. > Susan: So we can believe the big ones? > Death: Yes. Justice, mercy, duty. That sort of thing. > Susan: They're not the same at all! > Death: You think so? Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve and THEN show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet... you try to act as if there is some ideal order in the world. As if there is some... some rightness in the universe by which it may be judged. https://www.quotes.net/mquote/1016567 https://www.quotes.net/mquote/1016567
Badfood 6y ago
Well put
Lio 6y ago
It’s not an easy thing to do and not an easy thing to say out loud but I _am_ angry about it and there’s not much else I can do. Do we have agency over our own bodies or not? How can I keep that agency and help someone under an opt-out system? That has been taken from me when better, workable opt-in solutions weren’t tried. To take it to extremes, should the government be able to take “spare” kidneys from live donors? Should criminals be forced to donate blood? What about children that die in child birth, should they be harvested for organs too? ‘Cause the NHS were doing that at one time.[1] Where does the line stop? 1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1136723.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1136723.stm
- zimpenfish 6y ago
  > Do we have agency over our own bodies or not? Right up until the point it's no longer your own body because you're dead, yes. > To take it to extremes, should the government be able to take “spare” kidneys from live donors? No, they're not dead. > Should criminals be forced to donate blood? No, but again, they're not dead. > What about children that die in child birth should they be harvested for organs too? The law only covers adults with the opt-out which would make this another no. > Where does the line stop? Pretty much exactly where the law says it does - "All adults in England will be considered as having agreed to donate their own organs when they die unless they record a decision not to donate (known as ‘opting out’) or are in one of the excluded groups." [edit: Missed the A in "All"]
  - AdrianB1 6y ago
    The line is pushed a bit every time. This time is there, but the history tells us it is not stopping and the next step is scary.
- kaba0 6y ago
  But this is a moral dilemma, where a slightly less ethical choice WILL dramatically increase another variable that is widely regarded as good. And it’s not like it is forced, especially with the family being able to “stop” it even when it happens. The status quo was a different tradeoff.
- 6y ago
DoreenMichele 6y ago
Organ donation gets a lot of razzle dazzle press. I think we should put more effort into other things. Rejection is horrifying and can be deadly. Donated organs can introduce deadly infections. If all goes well, you will be on anti rejection meds the rest of your life. It's not the magic cure all with no downside that people often seem to imagine.
- ChefboyOG 6y ago
  ...what? Is there some media conspiracy pushing unnecessary organ transplants on people that I'm unaware of? I don't think anyone gets a liver transplant because of an article in Goop. I imagine that in most cases, they do it because they're going to die without it.
  - ekianjo 6y ago
    And they still have a great likelihood to die even after.
    - kaba0 6y ago
      So, after a heart attack we should not try to do CPR on you because you have a great likelihood to die either way, do I get it right? You might want to look into the definition of odds.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - DoreenMichele 6y ago
    It's really a lot more complicated than that. But I think it's time for me to walk away from this discussion.
- kaba0 6y ago
  All of these things are vastly better than dying due to a failed organ... and it’s not like other choices are not seeked. Should we not extend the life of so many children, because in 10 years there may be a better option?
ekianjo 6y ago
Punish who exactly?

rwmj 6y ago

> I’m not a bag of parts that belongs to an all powerful state. Aside from the fact that this statement is wrong - the state can conscript you if there's a war, or imprison you - I'm wondering what actual objection you have to donating parts of your body after you are dead? Personally speaking once I'm dead, I'm not going to care in the slightest.

Lio 6y ago
I have no objection to organ donation at all. I think the idea that someone might see with my eyes after my death to be a beautiful one and I’ve been a lifelong card carrying organ donor. I object to presumed consent. A gift is not a gift if it’s not freely given.
- sammax 6y ago
  Sounds a bit like you weren't an organ donor because it's the right thing but because it makes you feel good. And now that good feeling is taken away from you because everyone is an organ donor by default and you're not doing anything special anymore.
  - Lio 6y ago
    Does it? I think you’re twisting my words a bit there. My aim was simply to answer the parent’s claim that I might have an issue with organ transplant and that’s not the case. > because it’s the right thing “What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so”