• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mandatory Organ Donation

After death do you think it should be mandated that organs are used to save lives?

  • Total voters
    76
winston53660 said:
THE NEED IS REAL

114,813 people are waiting for an organ
18 people will die each day waiting for an organ
1 organ donor can save up to 8 lives


The Gap Continues to Widen
Right now, there are more than enough people waiting for an organ to fill a large football stadium twice over.

View attachment 67130841

organdonor.gov | The Need Is Real: Data
Click to expand...

The benefits to the OP's proposal do not outweigh the consequences. The need IS real. This is not disputed. That a person needs my organs does not compel me to provide them.

(I am an organ donor, by the way. This is my choice. Each is entitled to his/her choice)
 
Last edited:
kamikaze483 said:
The benefits to the OP's proposal do not outweigh the consequences. The need IS real. This is not disputed. That a person needs my organs does not compel me to provide them.

(I am an organ donor, by the way. This is my choice. Each is entitled to his/her choice)
Click to expand...

Meh idea logical clap trap. I'm for the opt out system not the opt on system
 
winston53660 said:
Meh idea logical clap trap. I'm for the opt out system not the opt on system
Click to expand...

I'll agree, as long as everyone is automatically opted out from the start. Not ideoligical. I value my individual right to my bodily organs. This is as practical as you can get.
 
kamikaze483 said:
I'll agree, as long as everyone is automatically opted out from the start. Not ideoligical. I value my individual right to my bodily organs. This is as practical as you can get.
Click to expand...

Well we will have to agree to disagree. I don't think dead people can exercise rights

Btw than a for being a donor
 
winston53660 said:
If there is to much trauma to the organs to cause death they are not harvestable. What we are talking about is brain dead people like Terri Schivo
Click to expand...

Kandahar said:
Of course. But I don't think that the organs of injured people are normally harvested anyway; the trauma would most likely make the organs useless.
Click to expand...

Meant to say this earlier, but I especially oppose mandatory organ donation or requiring an opt out from those who haven't even been injured in the first place.
 
X Factor said:
Meant to say this earlier, but I especially oppose mandatory organ donation or requiring an opt out from those who haven't even been injured in the first place.
Click to expand...

Why? If we're talking about someone who is merely terminally ill rather than injured, then it should allay your concerns about the family not being able to communicate their wishes in time, or making a split-second decision under extreme duress. With an illness, you know it's coming (or at least that it's a possibility), and you have time to prepare. If the patient or their next-of-kin still can't be bothered to get their affairs in order, too bad. There are too many people dying because they couldn't get an organ in time, to continue having an opt-in system. It's not like an opt-out system puts a huge burden on people who really don't want to donate their organs.
 
Last edited:
Wake said:
I could compromise on the default being mandatory organ donations, and give people who care the option to opt out free of charge. If people are ignorant enough or don't care enough to get off the list then that's their problem.

Mandatory for all would be nice, but it's likely we can count on the ignorant to acquire life-saving organs when they're dead.
Click to expand...

There's that tone again. I care enough that I don't want people to die from getting what I got. Other people aren't so considerate, and seeing how organs have a very short shelf-life that limits the effectiveness of tests taken, removing the guarantee of receiving a clean organ that won't give you something terrible, like HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis, disorders of the blood, cancer, and other nasty **** that will be just as fatal as the reason why they needed the transplant in the first place.
 
Wake said:
No, it's apples and oranges imo.

Do you still own your home and your car when you die, too? No, you don't. Do you still own your job and your clothes? No, you don't. Money and property are a bit different from organs in a dead corpse. You no longer own your property or your money when you die, so while you're alive you write on a piece of paper, I believe it's called a "will," and you make plans to have ownership shift elsewhere. If you die without making any mention of your organs I believe your rights no longer apply, because you haven't made anything clear through a will while living. The good outweighs the bad because it's morally wrong how the rich get better access to life-saving organs while the poor and uninfluential suffer and die, their hopes crushed. You can be cold and wicked with your selfish want to have your life-saving organs rot while kids and adults die, but hopefully one day people with that mindset will be in the majority. The greater good for the survival of homo sapien demands we not waste the items that can save the rest of us. A dead human has no needs of his/her organs. A young girl with a failing liver and her potentially full life ahead of her does.
Click to expand...
Your estate is an extension of yourself, and your estate owns those things, so in a sense, yes, you do still own your things after you die. For a time.

All you have really done here is argue that, barring already existing donor status, or specific instructions not to, it's up to the executor of the estate.
 
No, this violates the freedoms of the families of the dead. If the deceased / the deceased's family dont want to donate the organs then they shouldn't be donated.
 
Last edited:
Non-fiction here.

I was taking a stress test getting in line for a heart transplant. The guy running it brought me this form that incase I died during this test they could harvest my organs. I looked at the guy like he was crazy. Hello I'm willing to take a donated organ! And I have to sign a form to say if I die.....

Just how far does the opt in system go?
 
winston53660 said:
Non-fiction here.

I was taking a stress test getting in line for a heart transplant. The guy running it brought me this form that incase I died during this test they could harvest my organs. I looked at the guy like he was crazy. Hello I'm willing to take a donated organ! And I have to sign a form to say if I die.....

Just how far does the opt in system go?
Click to expand...

They probably wanted it for scientific / research purposes.
 
Dagger said:
They probably wanted it for scientific / research purposes.
Click to expand...

The only organ that is bad on me is the heart. I've had them all checked out. But even if they wanted them for that I'm happy with that and with what ever knowledge is gained.

However the point is that I'm willing to accept an organ yet I can refuse to donate mine?
 
winston53660 said:
The only organ that is bad on me is the heart. I've had them all checked out. But even if they wanted them for that I'm happy with that and with what ever knowledge is gained.

However the point is that I'm willing to accept an organ yet I can refuse to donate mine?
Click to expand...

Well requiring all recipients of organ donations to donate their organs sounds reasonable enough to me.
 
Last edited:
Dagger said:
Well requiring all recipients of organ donations to donate hire organs sounds reasonable enough to me.
Click to expand...

I think the dead dead don't give a ****.
 
Kandahar said:
Why? If we're talking about someone who is merely terminally ill rather than injured, then it should allay your concerns about the family not being able to communicate their wishes in time, or making a split-second decision under extreme duress. With an illness, you know it's coming (or at least that it's a possibility), and you have time to prepare. If the patient or their next-of-kin still can't be bothered to get their affairs in order, too bad. There are too many people dying because they couldn't get an organ in time, to continue having an opt-in system. It's not like an opt-out system puts a huge burden on people who really don't want to donate their organs.
Click to expand...

Kandahar, it's just not true to claim that the majority of organ donations come from victims of a pro-longed illness. It's actually a lot less likely that someone who has been terminally ill for a long period of time will have usable and harvestable organs than someone who's suffered a sudden and severe trauma.

Most organ donors are accident victims who have suffered severe and eventually fatal injuries—often a severe head injury.
Click to expand...

http://www.nyu.edu/clubs/organ.donation/process.htm#donor
 
Poll should have included "Yes, with the ability to opt out." Which would have been my choice.
 
X Factor said:
Kandahar, it's just not true to claim that the majority of organ donations come from victims of a pro-longed illness. It's actually a lot less likely that someone who has been terminally ill for a long period of time will have usable and harvestable organs than someone who's suffered a sudden and severe trauma.

nyu | students for organ donation | the transplant process
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. However, the point still remains that anyone who has serious objections to organ donation can opt out ahead of time, so that their family isn't scrambling at the last minute to prevent doctors from taking organs in the middle of extreme duress. An "opt-out" system doesn't impose a major burden on anyone who absolutely does not want to donate. Too many people are dying due to simple inertia, because most people won't bother to spend the 5 minutes to fill out an organ donation form. In any case when the person didn't "opt in" or "opt out" (and in which the family doesn't have a preference / can't be reached), the doctors are going to be making some assumptions about what the person would have wanted. So why not err on the side of actually saving lives? Who is harmed by it?
 
I think organ donation is great but making it mandatory seems too tyrannical. A better solution IMHO would be offering financial compensation to the family of the late donor should they choose to offer organ/tissue transplantation from their late loved one. If it meant kids college funds would be contributed to and bills paid off I bet we'd start seeing more voluntary organ donations (for lack of a better word). I'm thinking health insurance should cover the cost.

FYI: You might be surprised how much money the blood bank charges hospitals for the blood the community voluntarily donates. All for a good and important cause and thank God for it but there is money involved. Certain blood types and blood components bring in more than others. I'm ab positive and the blood bank worker told me I was a walking gold mine.
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
The only organ that is bad on me is the heart. I've had them all checked out. But even if they wanted them for that I'm happy with that and with what ever knowledge is gained.

However the point is that I'm willing to accept an organ yet I can refuse to donate mine?
Click to expand...
It would be hypocritical, but yes.
 
I am ok with it being mandatory, but I am just cheap enough to think the recipient's insurance
should pay for the funeral expenses.
 
Smeagol said:
I think organ donation is great but making it mandatory seems too tyrannical. A better solution IMHO would be offering financial compensation to the family of the late donor should they choose to offer organ/tissue transplantation from their late loved one. If it meant kids college funds would be contributed to and bills paid off I bet we'd start seeing more voluntary organ donations (for lack of a better word). I'm thinking health insurance should cover the cost.

FYI: You might be surprised how much money the blood bank charges hospitals for the blood the community voluntarily donates. All for a good and important cause and thank God for it but there is money involved. Certain blood types and blood components bring in more than others. I'm ab positive and the blood bank worker told me I was a walking gold mine.
Click to expand...

You give blood to the blood bank and they charge a fortune for the blood. I understand expences and all but the stuff they sell was given to them pretty much for free. That means the only real costs should be personel and storage costs along with testing. They sell off the blood dirivetives for profit before the blood expires so the expences for a NON PROFIT enity should fairly low. Something doesnt smell right.
 
Hell no, I'm kinda big on voluntary consent and private property.

That being said, I am an organ donor.
 
Lachean said:
Hell no, I'm kinda big on voluntary consent and private property.

That being said, I am an organ donor.
Click to expand...

I think it's horrifying that anybody would even entertain the idea that the state "owns" individual bodies or that there should ever, ever be a mandate. But like you, I'm ready to donate everything of use and have been part of the National Bone Marrow Registry for over 20 years and hope someday I'll get the call.
 
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. This is especially true in the case where the need of one party is instead a desire. This also applies when roles are reversed, but one party still holds to their desires over another parties needs; so in the case of the many desiring something that is harmful for the few, the beneficiary action would be to negate the desire of the many.

As statistics and facts have shown, organs are in great need for those who wish to avoid an untimely death. So for the good of those people, it is an absolute necessity that they acquire the organs that they need to live. To deny this is to deny the innocent life, an action that is the hallmark of an uncivilized society.

The self ceases to exist beyond death; what remains is nothing more than an empty vessel, or shell, of that former self. It is only through mutual association of the person and their physical body that people come to possess a sentimental attraction to the corpse. But to base a social policy solely on sentiment alone is foolish; while not worthless, it should at least be secondary to reason. So although a difficult endeavor, I would request that those who hold sentiment for the corpse alleviate their emotions from the matter so that progress can be made.

So the desire of an individual to practice something that is both emotional and selfish at the expense of the greater good is not something that should be accepted. What ones immediate desires is irrelevant compared to the need of the whole group.
The only practical benefit that I could see for not instituting mandatory organ donation would be natural population culling; to allow those that do have needs to die as a means of ensuring that the population remains at a stable level. This method can also be used to secure the greater good of the nation.

I would also be in favor of the 'opt-out' system where individuals can choose to not give away organs, but to have the ability to keep organs beyond death is not only extremely selfish, but I find giving that liberty to people unnecessary. I would also be in favor of monetary gains as reimbursement for donating organs, for either voluntary or mandatory organ donation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom