Chindie Posted November 17, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted November 17, 2008 A couple of reasons why it might be right DDID. If Paddys article there is anything to go by, the presumed consent is at the will of the relatives. If they say no when you hop the twig, you're out. (and incidently, as Bicks I think earlier said, that's not on either. If you said yes, in sound mind and all that, thats final imo) And leading on from that, it mya have something to do with, as I suggested, not many people are actually want to donate and when asked, said they'd opt out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 If Paddys article there is anything to go by, the presumed consent is at the will of the relatives. If they say no when you hop the twig, you're out. But that certainly wouldn't lead to less people doing it than do currently. And leading on from that, it mya have something to do with, as I suggested, not many people are actually want to donate and when asked, said they'd opt out. But that certainly wouldn't lead to less people doing it than do currently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted November 17, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted November 17, 2008 If Paddys article there is anything to go by, the presumed consent is at the will of the relatives. If they say no when you hop the twig, you're out. But that certainly wouldn't lead to less people doing it than do currently. And as the article says, it wouldn't necessarily make any more either. And leading on from that, it mya have something to do with, as I suggested, not many people are actually want to donate and when asked, said they'd opt out. But that certainly wouldn't lead to less people doing it than do currently. And as the article says, it wouldn't necessarily make any more either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super-Villan Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 I think the general problem here, as with many issues in the world today, is that people don't like being told what to do by the government. Well boo-hoo. This is life and death. Get over it. I've voted 'Opt out (which I wouldn't)' though the choice I want isn't there - once your dead, the medical profession can take whatever it needs to save other people's lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 If Paddys article there is anything to go by, the presumed consent is at the will of the relatives. If they say no when you hop the twig, you're out. But that certainly wouldn't lead to less people doing it than do currently. And as the article says, it wouldn't necessarily make any more either. And leading on from that, it mya have something to do with, as I suggested, not many people are actually want to donate and when asked, said they'd opt out. But that certainly wouldn't lead to less people doing it than do currently. And as the article says, it wouldn't necessarily make any more either. No. But logic would suggest that it would probably increase, even if not by much. For example, under presumed consent somebody would get my organs. At the moment, nobody would. So chalk up one extra as a bare minimum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 I think the general problem here, as with many issues in the world today, is that people don't like being told what to do by the government. Well boo-hoo. This is life and death. Get over it. It is not a case of 'not liking' - it is a case of fundamentally objecting. And as a retort to the poster earlier saying If critically ill would you accept an organ transplant INTO your body ? If you answer yes to that question you automatically agree to donate your organs at death I would not accept an organ that had not been voluntarily donated and I am glad to volunteer my organs for donation. I will not be 'volunteered' into anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 So chalk up one extra as a bare minimum. And chalk up one less when including me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 dead simple really If I died early and I can help others then so what what else happens to them, in my case would get burnt the ultimate green gesture isn;t it ? and you save people as well for me a no brainer If you wanted an organ transplant and not enough available then those who would opt out would you forgo your transplant on principle, if you do then great Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deaceydeaceyaggro Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 Don't like the idea of an opt out option. I just think there's something sinister about the government having the right to take parts of a dead body by default. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 I think the general problem here, as with many issues in the world today, is that people don't like being told what to do by the government. Well boo-hoo. This is life and death. Get over it. It is not a case of 'not liking' - it is a case of fundamentally objecting. And as a retort to the poster earlier saying If critically ill would you accept an organ transplant INTO your body ? If you answer yes to that question you automatically agree to donate your organs at death I would not accept an organ that had not been voluntarily donated and I am glad to volunteer my organs for donation. I will not be 'volunteered' into anything. Even if it meant somebody dying in order to make some anti-government stand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted November 17, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted November 17, 2008 If you wanted an organ transplant and not enough available then those who would opt out would you forgo your transplant on principle, if you do then great Unfortunately, while that sounds all fair and good, it's not quite the way the NHS works, nor should it. It is a choice to volunteer to donate. If I required a donated organ, I should be entitled to it (when it comes to my turn, of course) regardless of whether I'd signed up to do it myself. I do suddenly feel I may have directed this worryingly close to 2 tier NHS medical care and all that jazz with this though...:oops: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 Well boo-hoo. This is life and death. Get over it. i wish i could get over death. walt disney has tried it, hasn't he? Not been successful yet though :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 the ultimate green gesture isn;t it ? you've lost me, Ian. :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 Even if it meant somebody dying in order to make some anti-government stand? It is not an 'anti-government' stand. If you think that you make your point well by ridiculing a principle which someone else holds then I think that you are mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 If I required a donated organ, I should be entitled to it (when it comes to my turn, of course) regardless of whether I'd signed up to do it myself. but what if there aren't enough organs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 If you think that you make your point well by ridiculing a principle which someone else holds then I think that you are mistaken. I don't mean to ridicule any point that you make. Merely trying to understand where you are coming from - as I am struggling to understand the logic. Some elucidation would be appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 If I required a donated organ, I should be entitled to it (when it comes to my turn, of course) regardless of whether I'd signed up to do it myself. but what if there aren't enough organs? at the moment clinical need but surely those who would nto donate woul find the thought of other body parts in thier body wrong ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 the ultimate green gesture isn;t it ? you've lost me, Ian. :| burn organs - carbon released !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted November 17, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted November 17, 2008 If I required a donated organ, I should be entitled to it (when it comes to my turn, of course) regardless of whether I'd signed up to do it myself. but what if there aren't enough organs? Then that'd be the way it goes, unfortunately for me in that scenario. Of course I'd want as many donors as possible out there. So long as they were all choosing to be in and not assumed that they should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted November 17, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted November 17, 2008 If I required a donated organ, I should be entitled to it (when it comes to my turn, of course) regardless of whether I'd signed up to do it myself. but what if there aren't enough organs? at the moment clinical need but surely those who would nto donate woul find the thought of other body parts in thier body wrong ? Not necessarily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts