paddy Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 They're talking about changing the system in Britain from opt in to opt out. What are your views on this? Personally I think it's a good system and could save many lives. Now my thinking is probably going to sound flawed on this but I'll try and explain my feelings. I won't opt in to the system as it is, but I wouldn't opt out if the other system came in. There's a couple of reasons I don't like the idea of signing up, and I realise they don't stand up to examination. They're pretty flawed. But the main one is I just don't like the idea of thinking about what happens to me when I die. Included in with stuff I get from the hospital I sometimes get something asking if I want to donate my organs if I die. Personally I find that quite insensitive when I've got a life threatening illness and I don't feel it's the right way to go about it. But it's not that I don't want them to have my organs once I'm dead, I've got bugger all use to them. I just don't like having to think about it, sign up to it. If it was opt out I wouldn't opt out, if it was the norm then great, and if I die harvest away. I am well aware that thinking is flawed, but we're not rational as a species. Otherwise there wouldn't be any SHA fans in the world. So what do you think the system should be and do you 'opt in' to the current scheme? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 I do not think that your reasoning is flawed or contradictory at all. I do not opt in and I would opt out, for much the same reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddy Posted November 17, 2008 Author Share Posted November 17, 2008 See yours is consistent, you're not giving your organs away no matter what, which is fine. Absolutely your choice. Mine is the opposite for one than the other. Which makes me feel a bit stupid, but I can't see me changing my mind. Do you mind me asking why you would opt out Richard if the system was changed? Just the whole thing about someone cutting up your body when you're dead? I'm not criticising, just wondered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oaks Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 I understand to a point in opting out but i think its a ethically wrong thing to do for lazy people like me. I change my mind on whether i would have a donor card quite often i willing to a point but there is just something stopping me from making that final step. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 There was a bit of a discussion on this earlier in the year, IIRC. I currently carry a donor card, am registered and would hope that all my organs could be made us of after I'm gone (though you'd have to be an unlucky bugger to get my liver, I think :winkold:). If the system were to be presumed consent then I would opt out, I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 I'd be for an "opt out" system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 I do opt in, but if it were forced unpon me I would opt out on principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 Do you mind me asking why you would opt out Richard if the system was changed? Just the whole thing about someone cutting up your body when you're dead? I'm not criticising, just wondered A bit of that but basically it boils down to not wanting to think (or perhaps accept) the inevitable outcome of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villab0y Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 I think opt out is better. I wouldn't opt out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddy Posted November 17, 2008 Author Share Posted November 17, 2008 I'd be for an "opt out" system. What's the system over there Michelsen? Opt in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 17, 2008 Moderator Share Posted November 17, 2008 Aha! todays fill the pages of the papers with positive guff to made the Gordo look good 1) Is the reason we in this country do so few transplants a) the lack of organs or the lack of surgeons? Do some digging and you'll find the answer 2) Why are there less organs being donated? Again do the digging and ask the questions, you might find its not for the reasons usually given 3) Is it true that in countries that have opt out policies that there was an increase in donations? (Hint: Check out Spain) So when you've done your homework, come back and tell us again what you think. Me, I'm not in favour of opt out and have gladly opted in for years. Make it opt in and I'd have to consider my position though I would probably stay in as making my political point compared to giving life to someone else seems a tad minor in perspective. Though I am concerned where this would lead us, state ownership of my corpse is not something I want to happen, thats the nanny state going way to far and sod knows what path its taking us down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted November 17, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted November 17, 2008 As it is with the opt in, I'd consider it. I don't know what my choice would be however. Opt out, and out of principle I'd do it. I don't the idea that the state presumes what I want doing with what is essentially, well, me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 I do opt in, but if it were forced unpon me I would opt out on principle. So you would let somebody die because of your principles? I'm up for an Opt Out system, which I wouldn't do of course. But to be honest, it's not exactly difficult to become a donor, you can do it over the friggin internet. The ONLY reason somebody should have for not being a donor is IMO on religious grounds. Otherwise you have no excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 As it is with the opt in, I'd consider it. I don't know what my choice would be however. Opt out, and out of principle I'd do it. I don't the idea that the state presumes what I want doing with what is essentially, well, me. Why though? What use is are your organs to you after you die? Believe me, I'm dead set against state control wherever possible, but in this case I think the benefits outweight the negative aspects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 17, 2008 Moderator Share Posted November 17, 2008 The ONLY reason somebody should have for not being a donor is IMO on religious grounds. Otherwise you have no excuse. I don't think you've worded that correctly, there are plenty of people who can't donate because of illnesses they've previously had for example Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 The ONLY reason somebody should have for not being a donor is IMO on religious grounds. Otherwise you have no excuse. I don't think you've worded that correctly, there are plenty of people who can't donate because of illnesses they've previously had for example Well yes, I should have added assuming everything is OK with the organ itself. That would be up to the doctor to decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villab0y Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 Do the people saying no have any experience of needing a donor for them or a loved one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 I'd be for an "opt out" system. What's the system over there Michelsen? Opt in? Yep. Opt in. There's been some debate about changing it to opt out, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted November 17, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted November 17, 2008 As it is with the opt in, I'd consider it. I don't know what my choice would be however. Opt out, and out of principle I'd do it. I don't the idea that the state presumes what I want doing with what is essentially, well, me. Why though? What use is are your organs to you after you die? Believe me, I'm dead set against state control wherever possible, but in this case I think the benefits outweight the negative aspects. It's no-one elses decision but my own. I have no need to justify further. I'd consider opting in, I probably will in fact, but purely as it's my choice to decide. I don't like the fact that the state would decide I'm in unless I decide I'm out, should be the other way round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 17, 2008 Moderator Share Posted November 17, 2008 Where I would be in favour of a change in legislation is where a dead person has given consent when he was alive and the relatives change the persons decision once he's dead, that should be stopped. A decision made in good faith and of sound mind when you are alive should be honoured in death. If you opt in, that is a binding contract until such times as you opt out again and no relative can change that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts