• 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
With any mandate passed, like Obamacare for example, there is the risk of abuses. They would be punitized through the legal system to the fullest extent.

Families would likely have the body in time for burial. I'm no surgeon, but I don't think it takes more than a day to take the organs out of a still-viable body.

I'm not sure if exceptions should be made for the religious. If Obamacare didn't make exceptions for the religious, then I doubt exceptions would be made for this, either.

Dead people are lumps of matter. If the government can manage the complexities of living people through, say, healthcare and Social Security, withdrawing viable organs from dead bodies would be incredibly simple.
I'm willing to risk abuse when the the costs outweigh the benefits. In this case, they don't. Moreover, post mortem rituals aren't just about having the body in time for burial - which probably wouldn't happen since the government has never done very well with time - it can also be about having an intact (no organs removed) body. There are also people who believe that the body needs to be immediately buried and so on. Jesus, just let people be buried the way they want to be buried.
 
Sounds like an idea that we can encourage through the use of punitive penalty taxes. Then, everybody gets a choice. :neutral:
 
I absolutely do not support mandatory organ donation upon death. If someone want to donate, good for them. Mandated? Hell no.
 
Instead of making someone check a box in order to be an organ donor, they should check in order not to be an organ donor.

Make organ donation the default, and if someone wants to opt out, then they check a box.
 
Instead of making someone check a box in order to be an organ donor, they should check in order not to be an organ donor.

Make organ donation the default, and if someone wants to opt out, then they check a box.

OK, I like that, too.

If the notion in the OP is impossible, I'd opt for this.
 
I won't miss my kidneys, in Valhalla.

I won't miss mine either, but it's bad enough that the government essentially owns you while you're alive, and now someone gets the bright idea that they want ownership of your freakin dead body parts as well.
 
Have you ever watched your uncle wither away and die over the course of five years, never to receive the pair of lungs he was waiting for?

I view humans as the animal-monkey homo sapien. We're typically hairless monkeys suspended in a rock in space. Unlike other animals we have heightened intelligence. Like ants and other creatures we crave order, efficiency, survival.

Once we die our right to our organs should die as well. How many people have to suffer and wait for organs that they may not ever receive? If you failed the birth lottery and are poor, chances are you won't be able to shunt money towards getting an organ faster.

No, you have no right to your organs when you die. Your organs will be used to save the lives of others desperately in need. Our country would be a much better place if we didn't waste the perfectly useable organs of the deceased. Think about it. How many people would you say are waiting for a new heart, lung, liver, etc? What if you found yourself waiting? Waiting. Waiting. Deteriorating. Hoping. Dying.

No more. Do away with voluntary donations. Make it mandatory for the benefit of all. What, you think you need your rotting organ after you're dead? No, you most certainly don't. It could be better put towards saving the life of another human being. It would take some strain off of our healthcare system if we had ready access to life-saving organs/tissue/whatever.

I think this is what's best for America.

The health care system is already ****ed beyond repair. Packing hospital freezers full of appropriated organs isn't going to help any. Organs have a very short shelf-life and under your proposed ideal scenario, we'd end up destroying more organic material than we'd be using, which would generate more cost. Plus it'd be pretty difficult for them to get organs from my cremated body, nor would anyone want my organs, since I drink, smoke, and do drugs on top of some genetic flaws that are best kept inside me, and not others. Most of this is undocumented. This means the system sees organs with a relatively clean background, even though they are not fit for transplant. Under your system of everybody gives up their organs upon death, problems will occur. Fatal problems. So my vote is a huge **** no.
 
Last edited:
I disagree with tha philosophy. I don't think you own your body after you're dead and gone.

Inheritance is far different. A dead person has already dictated through will that his/her money will go to a living recipient. That is different.

Of course you own your body, or at least your family does. The government does not have a right to my dead body, regardless of the motive. The very idea disgusts me.
 
Instead of making someone check a box in order to be an organ donor, they should check in order not to be an organ donor.

Make organ donation the default, and if someone wants to opt out, then they check a box.
Nah, I think it should be opt in, as should all optional things. Opt out sucked on Facebook; it sucks even more for the government.
 
Why? ...........

how much of an incentive do you want to create for people to ensure that others with particular organ-matching die in strange accidents?

More fundamentally, the ownership of the self is the basis from which all other rights flow. You are destroying the underpinning of liberal (old style) representative self-government in order to maximize organ donation.
 
how much of an incentive do you want to create for people to ensure that others with particular organ-matching die in strange accidents?

More fundamentally, the ownership of the self is the basis from which all other rights flow. You are destroying the underpinning of liberal (old style) representative self-government in order to maximize organ donation.

I know. We already have death panels and a War on Christmas.
 
yes, make all-Americans default organ-donors.

if you want your body to have integrity when it becomes worm-food, you should have to select it and have it printed on your drivers license or state-issued ID.
 
Nah, I think it should be opt in, as should all optional things. Opt out sucked on Facebook; it sucks even more for the government.

Lol, what's the difference? All the opt-out option does is shift the very tiny amount of responsibility over to the person. And besides, it's not like you can't opt out later if you change your mind. I have a feeling there will be many more organs for donations iff'n we switch to the opt-out format, while still giving people with wacky superstitions the right to be greedy posthumously for no good reason.
 
Last edited:
Lol, what's the difference? All the opt-out option does is shift the very tiny amount of responsibility over to the person. And besides, it's not like you can't opt out later if you change your mind. I have a feeling there will be many more organs for donations iff'n we switch to the opt-out format.
If the notion of there being a difference is laughable to you, then you should consider opt-in and opt-out the same and therefore, should have no preference over the other.
 
yes, make all-Americans default organ-donors.

if you want your body to have integrity when it becomes worm-food, you should have to select it and have it printed on your drivers license or state-issued ID.

I simply don't want my organs put into another person after I die because they'll probably die. Plus, I shouldn't have to tell anyone anything of that nature. It's none of their ****ing business. You don't have a right to another persons body anyway.
 
If the notion of there being a difference is laughable to you, then you should consider opt-in and opt-out the same and therefore, should have no preference over the other.

I'm looking at the end results; more organs for donation = better outcome.

In an opt-out system, there's a good probability more people who don't really care what happens to their bodies after they die will end up donating their organs in the end.

People's laziness is always a good bet, even on something as small as checking a box.

Most people getting their licenses want to get it done with ASAP, so they just refuse any of the offers they are given to them at the DMV just to be done quicker. Thus, less people take the time to check an organ donor box, unless they feel strongly about it one way or the other. In order to "capture" these uninterested parties's organs who would otherwise go wasted, you require an opt out, use people's laziness to an advantage. People who care one way or another can still change their preference, but you end up with a net benefit of indifferent, lazy people's organs.
 
I'm looking at the end results; more organs for donation = better outcome.

In an opt-out system, there's a good probability more people who don't really care what happens to their bodies after they die will end up donating their organs in the end.

People's laziness is always a good bet, even on something as small as checking a box.

Most people getting their licenses want to get it done with ASAP, so they just refuse any of the offers they are given to them at the DMV just to be done quicker. Thus, less people take the time to check an organ donor box, unless they feel strongly about it one way or the other. In order to "capture" these uninterested parties's organs who would otherwise go wasted, you require an opt out, use people's laziness to an advantage. People who care one way or another can still change their preference, but you end up with a net benefit of indifferent, lazy people's organs.

Laziness is a double-edged sword, since it also increases the chances that something like this will happen more frequently.
 
I'm looking at the end results; more organs for donation = better outcome.

In an opt-out system, there's a good probability more people who don't really care what happens to their bodies after they die will end up donating their organs in the end.

People's laziness is always a good bet, even on something as small as checking a box.

Most people getting their licenses want to get it done with ASAP, so they just refuse any of the offers they are given to them at the DMV just to be done quicker. Thus, less people take the time to check an organ donor box, unless they feel strongly about it one way or the other. In order to "capture" these uninterested parties's organs who would otherwise go wasted, you require an opt out, use people's laziness to an advantage. People who care one way or another can still change their preference, but you end up with a net benefit of indifferent, lazy people's organs.
I don't think government control should be based on "capturing people" and counting on laziness to essentially trick people into doing something. That's what happened with Facebook which is why I used it as an example. They implemented new policies, people ended up dealing with the undesired consequences of them and **** hit the fan. That's what would happen with this and I think it's a horrible idea.
 
Laziness is a double-edged sword, since it also increases the chances that something like this will happen more frequently.

It seems that that particular case was more a result of poor screening methods. Now, of course who knows the problems we might have from having a glut of organs on hand, but I can't imagine we'd get enough to actually run out of donors. I was thinking at best we might reduce waiting times by a few weeks,
 
I don't think government control should be based on "capturing people" and counting on laziness to essentially trick people into doing something. That's what happened with Facebook which is why I used it as an example. They implemented new policies, people ended up dealing with the undesired consequences of them and **** hit the fan. That's what would happen with this and I think it's a horrible idea.

So...you're saying that you love my idea?
 
It seems that that particular case was more a result of poor screening methods. Now, of course who knows the problems we might have from having a glut of organs on hand, but I can't imagine we'd get enough to actually run out of donors. I was thinking at best we might reduce waiting times by a few weeks,

If the screening methods for that one instance was poor, imagine what it will be like when a large quantity of organs come pouring in. Organs only last so long before they have to be discarded, so checking them all is simply not an option, therefore they have to rely on medical history. You really think someone with HIV/AIDS, Herpes, or Hepatitis is going to say they have those diseases? A lot of people don't even know they have that stuff swimming around their bodies, and even more don't even have a medical history since they don't go to hospitals. We also have ****ty hospitals that just want the money, and don't do as good a job as they should. These reasons alone make mandatory organ donation a bad idea, let alone tricking people into being organ donors by playing on their laziness, which is unethical in and of itself.
 
Last edited:
Have you ever watched your uncle wither away and die over the course of five years, never to receive the pair of lungs he was waiting for?

I view humans as the animal-monkey homo sapien. We're typically hairless monkeys suspended in a rock in space. Unlike other animals we have heightened intelligence. Like ants and other creatures we crave order, efficiency, survival.

Once we die our right to our organs should die as well. How many people have to suffer and wait for organs that they may not ever receive? If you failed the birth lottery and are poor, chances are you won't be able to shunt money towards getting an organ faster.

No, you have no right to your organs when you die. Your organs will be used to save the lives of others desperately in need. Our country would be a much better place if we didn't waste the perfectly useable organs of the deceased. Think about it. How many people would you say are waiting for a new heart, lung, liver, etc? What if you found yourself waiting? Waiting. Waiting. Deteriorating. Hoping. Dying.

No more. Do away with voluntary donations. Make it mandatory for the benefit of all. What, you think you need your rotting organ after you're dead? No, you most certainly don't. It could be better put towards saving the life of another human being. It would take some strain off of our healthcare system if we had ready access to life-saving organs/tissue/whatever.

I think this is what's best for America.

No, just make it an opt out system where it can be done at any government office or over the internet.

The vast majority will be too lazy to bother.
 
If the screening methods for that one instance was poor, imagine what it will be like when a large quantity of organs come pouring in. Organs only last so long before they have to be discarded, so checking them all is simply not an option, therefore they have to rely on medical history. You really think someone with HIV/AIDS, Herpes, or Hepatitis is going to say they have those diseases? A lot of people don't even know they have that stuff swimming around their bodies, and even more don't even have a medical history since they don't. We also have ****ty hospitals that just want the money, and don't do as good a job as they should. These reasons alone make mandatory organ donation a bad idea, let alone tricking people into being organ donors by playing on their laziness, which is unethical in and of itself.

Okay, let me make clear I don't advocate exploiting laziness on the receiving end of the organs.

Yes, you have an excellent point; the organs coming need strict standards of quality control. So far, our organ donation programs are pretty effective and have a pretty good success rate. Certainly, more organs create the possibility of lowered standards to keep up with demand. It's a point well taken.

But if the general goal is to simply have more organs being donated, I still say the opt-out system is superior in terms of maximizing the overall numbers of organs available for donation. The screening, keeping and surgical attachment is a separate but related issue.
 
Back
Top Bottom