Jump to content

Organ Donation upon death


R_1

Organ Donation Upon Death Census  

50 members have voted

  1. 1. Should one be a organ donor by default?

    • Yes
      34
    • No
      16
  2. 2. What if there's a unexpected death, and you don't know the wish of that person? Organ Donor by default here?

    • Yes
      32
    • No
      18


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

You can't murder someone who is dead, so that analogy is nonsensical.

So is yours. A person in coma is incapable of giving consent. A dead body cannot give consent. That is still not the same situation, because a body does not have the same legal rights as a living person.

 

Opt-out does not prevent you from removing yourself from the donor list. What it does is place the importance of saving a human life over the legal rights of a dead body (in the case where you have no information that the person has opted out).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in favour of the donor by default system. My country has that law. Better disrespect a dead than not save a living. Personally though, I don't know. I want my body to be completely destroyed. 

However:

I think that as soon as the brain is irremediably dead, the person is gone. What has mattered to them during their life doesn't matter to them now, because they simply don't exist anymore (until proven otherwise I'm gonna assume that consciousness is formed in the living brain simply because that's the scientifically most likely option). So when I'm dead, I won't care about how people I don't know may or may not recycle some meat. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Charna said:

So is yours. A person in coma is incapable of giving consent.

No, mine is spot on. You arbitrarily define "give consent" as saying "yes", instead of "lack of saying no".

 

By the standards set in this poll, a comatose person does consent to everyone who wants to have sex with them, unless they've signed a declaration beforehand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

No, mine is spot on. You arbitrarily define "give consent" as saying "yes", instead of "lack of saying no".

 

By the standards set in this poll, a comatose person does consent to everyone who wants to have sex with them, unless they've signed a declaration beforehand.

I disagree with your analogy being spot on. In fact I find it extremely problematic (to be frank dehumanizing) that you continue to compare a comatose person to a dead body based on the idea that both are incapable of giving consent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Charna said:

In fact I find it extremely problematic (to be frank dehumanizing) that you continue to compare a comatose person to a dead body based on the idea that both are incapable of giving consent.

*shrug* That's your problem, not mine.

 

The actual dehumanization is treating a human body as a bunch of spare parts even if the person didn't consent to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mysticus Insanus said:

*shrug* That's your problem, not mine.

 

The actual dehumanization is treating a human body as a bunch of spare parts even if the person didn't consent to it.

See, and this is why I think your analogy is dehumanizing. I strongly disagree with the comparison that rape committed on a living person is the same as removing body parts from a dead body.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Charna said:

See, and this is why I think your analogy is dehumanizing. I strongly disagree with the comparison that rape committed on a living person is the same as removing body parts from a dead body.

You still fail to adress that the comatose person never said no, and almost certainly doesn't even notice the sexual act happening.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm basically Klingon in my beliefs on the body after death. To me it's an empty shell and I don't care what happens to it, but I love the idea of helping others so I'm an organ donor. After they take what's good they can toss it into the woods or burn it. I really don't give a fuck.

I would prefer that everything in my body is used so I want to have my body (after organs for donors are removed) just left naked in the woods tossed into a river or ocean, or left in the desert. Anywhere that it will rot and recycle all it's nutrients back into the soil. I love the idea of buzzards picking my body clean and maggots and fungi doing the rest. I find that part of death beautiful. To become one with the environment again is my wish.

Like I said above I really would like that the most but I really don't care to much as long as my body is not buried in a casket/tomb! I hate the idea of not decaying...ewww.

But yeah throw it anywhere just don't preserve it! (Those things are a waste of land and resources anyways 😒)

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

You still fail to adress that the comatose person never said no, and almost certainly doesn't even notice the sexual act happening. 

 

Guess what, I never got to say no to getting vaccinated. Though I almost certainly noticed that, considering my parents recall I've raised a very vocal protest each and every time.

 

I still count myself lucky. Plenty of parents nowadays refuse to consent to vaccinating their kids. And some of these kids die. So do you think those kids should have, as you put it, just accept it was their time to die? Who should get to say 'no' in this case?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, donation should be the default position. Anyone can decide to opt out if they want to. 

I can't speak for other countries, but in Britain our centralised medical records mean that whenever anyone enters an NHS centre their details are verified, and yes/no would only take a few lines of code 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Charna said:

Guess what, I never got to say no to getting vaccinated. Though I almost certainly noticed that, considering my parents recall I've raised a very vocal protest each and every time.

 

I still count myself lucky. Plenty of parents nowadays refuse to consent to vaccinating their kids. And some of these kids die. So do you think those kids should have, as you put it, just accept it was their time to die? Who should get to say 'no' in this case?

You're mixing very different things again. Vaxxing is a preventative measure, and doesn't require dehumanization of another person. If vaccination relied on donated organs, and those organs weren't available from volunteer donors - then, yes, those kids should indeed just accept their time is up and die of measles or chickenpox or whatever, and more importantly, we as a society should accept that these kids die. That's the price of freedom and human dignity.

 

As for whether a parent should be allowed to overrule a child's consent when it comes to medical procedures... I have to say that that doesn't sit terribly well with me, either. (Although I'm perfectly fine with the state overruling the parents for the sake of the child.) Children's rights against their parents need strengthening.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think that it’s a good idea in theory but that it would be more harmful in practice. My family works in the medical field and they’ve come across cases of people having their doctor give less effort to save them since they were an organ donor, so that their organs could be used to help others. It’s a nice idea in people having more access to organs that they are missing, but problematic when you add in the human variable to the situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

You're mixing very different things again. Vaxxing is a preventative measure, and doesn't require dehumanization of another person. If vaccination relied on donated organs, and those organs weren't available from volunteer donors - then, yes, those kids should indeed just accept their time is up and die of measles or chickenpox or whatever, and more importantly, we as a society should accept that these kids die. That's the price of freedom and human dignity.

 

As for whether a parent should be allowed to overrule a child's consent when it comes to medical procedures... I have to say that that doesn't sit terribly well with me, either. (Although I'm perfectly fine with the state overruling the parents for the sake of the child.) Children's rights against their parents need strengthening.

It is not just preventative measures. Vaxxing isn't the only medical procedure that was done without my consent. I hated going to the dentist, for example.

 

A simple visit to the dentist actually carries a risk of death. Should all children be denied medial care in this case until they are adults? After all, it's their life you are risking if you agree that it is up to the goverment to give consent to get them treatment.

 

You can refuse life saving treatment, if you are an adult and capable of giving consent. But by default, it is based on an "opt out" and unless the medical personnel is informed otherwise, they will act upon it.

 

Should we refuse any medical treatment to your hypothethical person in a coma, since weare not able to obtain their consent?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Charna said:

It is not just preventative measures. Vaxxing isn't the only medical procedure that was done without my consent. I hated going to the dentist, for example.

 

A simple visit to the dentist actually carries a risk of death. Should all children be denied medial care in this case until they are adults? After all, it's their life you are risking if you agree that it is up to the goverment to give consent to get them treatment.

Depends on if they want medical care. If they don't, then it's best to just respect their choice, even if it ends up leading to their death. If a child doesn't want to go to the dentist, then it's not in any way okay to force them to go there.

 

 

6 hours ago, Charna said:

You can refuse life saving treatment, if you are an adult and capable of giving consent. But by default, it is based on an "opt out" and unless the medical personnel is informed otherwise, they will act upon it.

 

Should we refuse any medical treatment to your hypothethical person in a coma, since weare not able to obtain their consent?

That's a pretty difficult question. I'd say it would be reasonable to weigh the pros and cons in that case instead of taking a categorical fundamentalist stance. Giving them medical treatment is an acceptable risk; but be prepared to be sued afterwards, and don't make a fuss if you are.

 

It's still not comparable to the question of this poll. Taking someone's organs has absolutely no chance of benefitting that person, themselves. No harm whatsoever is done in simply not doing it, unless they gave explicit consent. No action should definitely be the default; other persons waiting for transplants is a factor completely irrelevant to the question - that's just conjuring up emotionalized pictures to muddle the waters in what should be a simple ethical decision. It's simply not about them; whether they live or die is utterly irrelevant to the decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

Depends on if they want medical care. If they don't, then it's best to just respect their choice, even if it ends up leading to their death. If a child doesn't want to go to the dentist, then it's not in any way okay to force them to go there.

Except at that age I didn't even understand the risks of not getting treatment, which in the case of an infection is sepsis and death.So why would you let a child make a decision when they are not capable of understanding the severity of the situation? That's no different then letting a child not get vaccinated. Yet you are in favor of the goverment enforcing vaccinations for kids. What exactly are these "children's rights" you are defending here? The right to make a decision that could harm them, even if they are not capable of providing informed consent?

 

6 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

 

That's a pretty difficult question. I'd say it would be reasonable to weigh the pros and cons in that case instead of taking a categorical fundamentalist stance. Giving them medical treatment is an acceptable risk; but be prepared to be sued afterwards, and don't make a fuss if you are.

 

It's still not comparable to the question of this poll. Taking someone's organs has absolutely no chance of benefitting that person, themselves. No harm whatsoever is done in simply not doing it, unless they gave explicit consent. No action should definitely be the default; other persons waiting for transplants is a factor completely irrelevant to the question - that's just conjuring up emotionalized pictures to muddle the waters in what should be a simple ethical decision. It's simply not about them; whether they live or die is utterly irrelevant to the decision.

But it is a question relevant to whether consent should by default always be assumed a no. When a person is in coma, unconscious or otherwise incapable of providing consent, any medical procedure undertaken is by default lacking consent. Why should whether there is a chance of benefitting that person matter at all? As an adult, you have the right to refuse a beneficial treatment even at the cost of your own health.

So it's a simple enough decision: if you witness an accident, do you give first aid even if you have no consent from that person and do not know if they wish to be resuscitated? You don't get much time in real life; the human brain can last only a very short time without oxygen.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bury the dead and mend the living

 

I think organ donation by default. 

I hope someone can make use of my organs when I am finished with them. Although I am aware of limitations to donating them

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Charna said:

So why would you let a child make a decision when they are not capable of understanding the severity of the situation? That's no different then letting a child not get vaccinated. Yet you are in favor of the goverment enforcing vaccinations for kids. What exactly are these "children's rights" you are defending here? The right to make a decision that could harm them, even if they are not capable of providing informed consent?

The right to decide over the integrity of their body. If we pass that on to the parents wholesale, it becomes ridiculous and inconsistent to call parental incest "rape" - it's their child, the parent can decide what happens to their body, and make the decision on whether they consented to sex, right? :rolleyes:

 

3 hours ago, Charna said:

Why should whether there is a chance of benefitting that person matter at all? As an adult, you have the right to refuse a beneficial treatment even at the cost of your own health.

Why should there be a crime called "theft"? It's just charitable gifts the owner might possibly have agreed with if they knew about it.

 

3 hours ago, Charna said:

So it's a simple enough decision: if you witness an accident, do you give first aid even if you have no consent from that person and do not know if they wish to be resuscitated? You don't get much time in real life; the human brain can last only a very short time without oxygen.

I have asked myself that pretty often, actually. At the very least, I know I'd have to be ready to bear the consequence of living with a life of guilt if I resuscitated someone who didn't want it.

 

As someone who has a clear "no resuscitation; unplug after 24 hours of life support" in my patient decree, I know I'd be pretty damn pissed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Janus the Fox

Organ Donation here in Wales is already assumed with an opt-out, has been for a while and one of the first countries to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel it should be an opt-out rather than an opt-in option. I think we should assume people are generous and giving (willing to donate their organs) before assume someone isn't, so if someone dies and their wishes aren't known, assume the best of the person.

 

As a sidenote, I'm an organ donator in the states. If I get murderized, my organs are up for grabs. But here in Japan it's also an opt-in system and apparently I have to make note of it on my insurance card which, no surprise, is in all Japanese. In complicated Japanese, even, so a lot of kanji that is hard to read and write out for translation. When my supervisor informed me of it, I asked her how to indicate it but I think she didn't hear me. So let's hope I don't die while here so my organs can go to a person in need. 

 

In regards to consent, I don't believe a dead body has a right to consent. If that person said before they didn't want to donate, that's their consent. If the person chose not to say yes or no, there's no answer and it's not "unable to consent" because they're a dead body. It's a sack of meat that could be used to help someone else live longer. I prioritize the still-living person over the sack of meat, but will respect their wishes if they chose not to donate their organs before death. 

 

For the rape comparison, having sex with a dead body isn't the same as having sex with a coma. Necrophilia is not rape, it's desecration of a corpse. So it's not the same issue at all. We wouldn't allow rape of a comatose patient just like we wouldn't harvest a comatose patient for their organs. If a person is being kept on life support, they're still alive and entitled to their organs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe anyone is entitled to anything unless they own it, so I think we'd have to answer who if anyone owns the corpse and the organs inside it. Do people still own their bodies even after death and therefore their wishes are still to be respected? Does their next of kin own it and therefore they're the ones who decide? Or does nobody own it and it's just up for grabs?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

The right to decide over the integrity of their body. If we pass that on to the parents wholesale, it becomes ridiculous and inconsistent to call parental incest "rape" - it's their child, the parent can decide what happens to their body, and make the decision on whether they consented to sex, right? :rolleyes:

 

But I haven't said anywhere that a parent should have the sole right to this decison. That is your (wrong) assumption on which you base your argument.I have asked you why do you think a child should make the decision in one instance (dentistry), even if they lack the ability to give informed consent (because they don't understand the risks and consequences), when you are fine with the state overruling the integrity of their body in another instance (vaccinations)? If you think that's rape, then why would you let the state do it?

In my country at that time we've had dentistry checks in primary school.

 

9 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

Why should there be a crime called "theft"? It's just charitable gifts the owner might possibly have agreed with if they knew about it.

Because the owner is dead. If there is a famine going and someone is starving, and they break into a rich dead guy's house, will it still be a theft? Yes. Will it be against the consent of the owner? Possibly; you don't know if they would agree to share their food.

An "opt out" system doesn't prevent you from refusing organ donation. But in a situation where you don't have that information, it places more importance on the life of another person, the the legal rights of a dead body.

 

9 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

I have asked myself that pretty often, actually. At the very least, I know I'd have to be ready to bear the consequence of living with a life of guilt if I resuscitated someone who didn't want it.

Guilt or not, you'd still be acting without their consent. Now apply your 'sexual assault' analogy to this situation. What have you just done?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Opt out sounds reasonable to me. Not sure what the big deal is tbh, I'd be dead so whatever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Charna said:

But I haven't said anywhere that a parent should have the sole right to this decison. That is your (wrong) assumption on which you base your argument.I have asked you why do you think a child should make the decision in one instance (dentistry), even if they lack the ability to give informed consent (because they don't understand the risks and consequences), when you are fine with the state overruling the integrity of their body in another instance (vaccinations)? If you think that's rape, then why would you let the state do it?

Refusing vaccination directly puts other people at risk (herd immunity). Refusing organ donation hurts nobody.

 

 

4 hours ago, Charna said:

An "opt out" system doesn't prevent you from refusing organ donation. But in a situation where you don't have that information, it places more importance on the life of another person, the the legal rights of a dead body.

But yet, with the comatose sex partner, it suddenly becomes "rape" to assume consent unless opted out in writing, in advance. If you really didn't want to have sex while in a coma, you could have taken a few minutes beforehand to write that in a living will, right? Why should the conscious person's sexual freedom be impeded by assuming lack of consent?

 

 

4 hours ago, Charna said:

Guilt or not, you'd still be acting without their consent. Now apply your 'sexual assault' analogy to this situation. What have you just done?

I don't know why you think that would be a gotcha question. It is, indeed, a closely parallel situation, that's why I'd hesitate to resuscitate in the first place. Duh?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

Refusing vaccination directly puts other people at risk (herd immunity). Refusing organ donation hurts nobody.

But this doesn't answer my question about consent. I have asked you why you are fine with enforcing one medical procedure (vaccination) on a child, when at the same time you are against enforcing another medical procedure (treating an infection) on a child even if this would lead to their death:

 

On 10/3/2019 at 1:25 PM, Mysticus Insanus said:

Depends on if they want medical care. If they don't, then it's best to just respect their choice, even if it ends up leading to their death. If a child doesn't want to go to the dentist, then it's not in any way okay to force them to go there.

So please clarify: you are fine with enforcing a medical procedure on someone incapable of giving informed consent, as long as the society (yourself included) gets to benefit - in this case herd immunity. Why don't you apply your own reasoning to this situation? If your immune system is to weak to handle an infection, then you should just accept it and die. Don't enforce vaccinations on others so that they protect you via herd immunity. Other people's immune systems are not a "spare part" for yours.

 

1 hour ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

But yet, with the comatose sex partner, it suddenly becomes "rape" to assume consent unless opted out in writing, in advance. If you really didn't want to have sex while in a coma, you could have taken a few minutes beforehand to write that in a living will, right? Why should the conscious person's sexual freedom be impeded by assuming lack of consent?

A person in a coma is not a dead body.

1 hour ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

I don't know why you think that would be a gotcha question. It is, indeed, a closely parallel situation, that's why I'd hesitate to resuscitate in the first place. Duh?

It's your own analogy. You are the one who thinks that this is a situation akin to rape, and yet you still choose to do it. When it comes to sexual assault, it doesn't matter if the rapist feels guilt, it doesn't matter if they hesitate, what matters is whether they choose to do it or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Charna said:

But this doesn't answer my question about consent. I have asked you why you are fine with enforcing one medical procedure (vaccination) on a child, when at the same time you are against enforcing another medical procedure (treating an infection) on a child even if this would lead to their death:

 

5 minutes ago, Charna said:

So please clarify: you are fine with enforcing a medical procedure on someone incapable of giving informed consent, as long as the society (yourself included) gets to benefit - in this case herd immunity.

I never said I'm fine with it. And enforcing quarantine/isolation on the child (keeping them from going to school, kindergarten, playgrounds) would be an acceptable alternative.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Charna said:

A person in a coma is not a dead body.

A comatose person doesn't take any harm from being used for sex, assuming ample lube is used.

 

But since you keep stomping your feet about this distinction, I'm sure we can both agree that you have no issue with bodies being used for sex after death, then? Morgues doubling as brothels for necrophiliacs - yay or nay? Have you personally signed a declaration of opting out of your body becoming a sex toy yet? If not, we can safely assume that's fine with you.

 

 

9 minutes ago, Charna said:

It's your own analogy. You are the one who thinks that this is a situation akin to rape, and yet you still choose to do it. When it comes to sexual assault, it doesn't matter if the rapist feels guilt, it doesn't matter if they hesitate, what matters is whether they choose to do it or not.

Yes, people choose to commit rape. Duh.

 

And I have never resuscitated anyone, neither with nor without their consent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

 

I never said I'm fine with it. And enforcing quarantine/isolation on the child (keeping them from going to school, kindergarten, playgrounds) would be an acceptable alternative.

Whether you are enforcing quarantine, or enforcing vaccinations, you are still taking away their body autonomy. May I remind you of your own words?

" Whether their lives depend on it is irrelevant. "

It's the job of your immune system, your organs, your own body to protect you from infection. You don't get to claim someone else's body, whether by vaccination, or by isolating them, to protect yourself.

 

18 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

A comatose person doesn't take any harm from being used for sex, assuming ample lube is used.

That still doesn't make them a dead person.

 

18 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

But since you keep stomping your feet about this distinction, I'm sure we can both agree that you have no issue with bodies being used for sex after death, then? Morgues doubling as brothels for necrophiliacs - yay or nay? Have you personally signed a declaration of opting out of your body becoming a sex toy yet? If not, we can safely assume that's fine with you.

I don't think necrophilia is a crime of the same severity as rape, no. And if the price for helping saving lives with organ donations is indeed that someone would get to have sex with my remaining sack of bones, sign me up.

 

But I wonder, since you don't mind ignoring body autonomy when it comes to a situation where you personally are at risk (infectious diseases), where does it put you in that situation? If you enforce a quarantine, that's non-consensual. If you vaccinate children, that's by default non-consensual too. Does it make you the brothel owner then? Because it seems to me that you are fine with solutions that involve restricting the freedom of others, as long as there is a gain for you in it.

 

18 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

And I have never resuscitated anyone, neither with nor without their consent.

And?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Charna said:

Whether you are enforcing quarantine, or enforcing vaccinations, you are still taking away their body autonomy.

 

7 hours ago, Charna said:

If you enforce a quarantine, that's non-consensual.

Enforcing quarantine does not take away bodily autonomy. It merely restricts freedom of movement, a far less important right.

 

 

7 hours ago, Charna said:

That still doesn't make them a dead person.

Not relevant to anything, but you do you with pretending you have a point. 🤷‍♀️

 

 

7 hours ago, Charna said:

And if the price for helping saving lives with organ donations is indeed that someone would get to have sex with my remaining sack of bones, sign me up.

If you think you get to decide that for others, you're a horrible person I simply want nothing to do with. You urgently need to be taught some respect and humility.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

 

Enforcing quarantine does not take away bodily autonomy. It merely restricts freedom of movement, a far less important right.

 

But just a few posts ago you were willing to accept children dying as a price of "freedom and dignity". Well, what happened to that freedom and dignity now? That person has done nothing wrong, and yet you are proposing to lock them up them to protect yourself. It's not their fault your body is not strong enough to handle an infection.

 

17 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

If you think you get to decide that for others, you're a horrible person I simply want nothing to do with. You urgently need to be taught some respect and humility.

Oh please. If you want to preach morals to me, practice them yourself. If you think that resuscitating someone against their will is pararell to sexual assault, and yet you would do it, don't tell me how others are wrong for doing something you also think is similar to sexual assault. If you preach freedom and dignity at the cost of others' lives, don't restrict their freedom to protect yours.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...