• 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
We could use an opt-out system with incredibly biased wording on the form:

Do you wish to be a selfish jerk by taking all your organs with you to the grave to be worm food instead of giving them to someone to save their life?
Click to expand...

J/K

Some of you have been using language like that. Whose body is it anyway?

I would still opt out because of an article I read years ago about doctors taking organs before the person was really dead. I can't link to the article because this was pre-Internet. It scared the crap out of me and I've never been an organ donor since. I'm not sure if they would want my organs anyway since I take a lot of pain meds due to a chronic condition. Ghoulish stuff like this completely creeps me out to begin with. I can't watch any of those shows that show an operation in action or I'll get nightmares.
 
Luna Tick said:
I would still opt out because of an article I read years ago about doctors taking organs before the person was really dead. I can't link to the article because this was pre-Internet. It scared the crap out of me and I've never been an organ donor since. I'm not sure if they would want my organs anyway since I take a lot of pain meds due to a chronic condition. Ghoulish stuff like this completely creeps me out to begin with. I can't watch any of those shows that show an operation in action or I'll get nightmares.
Click to expand...
I'll be honest and admit that this is always in the back of my mind, as well.

Yeah, I know I know, there would be massive safeguards in place. Oversight and accountability like no one would believe. Yada yada yada. I will grant that it would be rare, but I do not believe that it would be non-existent. Bottom line: money talks. There are way too many people in the world that have no scruples, and if there are potentially sizable amounts of money to be earned in black market organs, there will be some who will try to seize that "opportunity".

Just one example: Animal parts, i.e. rhinoceros horns, elephant tusks, etc. Some of the most reviled practices in the world. Enforcements attempts that are actually pretty strong. Penalties, if caught, are severe. Yet, it continues to happen. If there is a market, there will be a supplier.
 
If you mandate such a thing, I will come up with something clever to sabotage the usefulness of my organs after my death.
That's of course, if my death is caused by some kind of foreseeable illness or old age.

Plus, I'm really hoping to have my head frozen, so I really don't want that messed with.
 
Kandahar said:
Maybe they go to the trouble to sign a document saying that they don't want the deceased person's organs to be taken, and deliver it to the hospital or morgue. Something like that. Something that's enough of an inconvenience that most people won't bother, but not so much of an inconvenience that the family's wishes aren't respected.

Part of the problem with our current system is that most people are simply lazy. Most people would have no issue with being an organ donor, but far less are actually registered to be an organ donor. An "opt-out" system makes more sense than an "opt-in" system IMO. There are too many people desperately in need of organs for us to just bury people with perfectly good organs when they weren't even opposed to donating them.
Click to expand...

I see. So parents that have just learned that their kid has been in a serious and possibly fatal accident, need to remember to bring a signed note with them otherwise they're SOL? Also, what if the kid does die before the parents can make it to the hospital to deliver this document. Should they just start harvesting organs before they know how the parents feel about it?

Sorry, but I think the presumption should be it's your (and your family's) choice what happens to your body after death.
 
X Factor said:
I see. So parents that have just learned that their kid has been in a serious and possibly fatal accident, need to remember to bring a signed note with them otherwise they're SOL?
Click to expand...

Yup. Or they just plan for that possibility ahead of time if it's something with which they would have a problem.

Also, what if the kid does die before the parents can make it to the hospital to deliver this document. Should they just start harvesting organs before they know how the parents feel about it?
Click to expand...

I'm not a medical person so I don't know how long the doctors can wait after a person dies before their organs stop being useful (or even the time scale...minutes, hours, etc). If time is an issue, and they have no reason to believe that it would be a problem, then the answer to your question should be yes.

Sorry, but I think the presumption should be it's your (and your family's) choice what happens to your body after death.
Click to expand...

And I think the presumption should be that we take the course of action that benefits people still alive, and leads to THEIR bodies functioning better, instead of giving all the rights to a carcass that no longer has any use for the organs anyway. If someone has a major problem with their organs being taken, then they should take care of it in advance and opt out...if they don't, then they shouldn't expect that their family will be able to communicate those wishes to the hospital before the doctors take the organs.

Regardless of whether you have an "opt in" system or an "opt out" system, you're going to be making a lot of assumptions about what the deceased would have wanted in most cases, since most people won't take any action and will just get the default treatment. So all else being equal, it's better to err on the side that will actually help people.
 
Last edited:
rathi said:
Its unfortunate that so many place their emotional connection to the dead above the living, but that is not justification enough for using state coercion. Selfishness is part of human nature and there are some places where its too invasive to justify state intervention even when it would benefit the collective good. In the long run, stell-cell grown organ replacements are a better solutions anyways.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's entirely unfortunate. The last thing you want when a loved one dies is to be removed so some men in white coats can cut your dead open and strip the corpse for parts like the body is just a car parked in the wrong alley.
 
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
 
Kandahar said:
Yup. Or they just plan for that possibility ahead of time if it's something with which they would have a problem.


I'm not a medical person so I don't know how long the doctors can wait after a person dies before their organs stop being useful (or even the time scale...minutes, hours, etc). If time is an issue, and they have no reason to believe that it would be a problem, then the answer to your question should be yes.
Click to expand...
Well wait a second. "Have no reason to believe it's a "problem". What does that mean? What if a parent says upon notification that their kid's in the hospital that they don't wish their child to be carved up. Is that reason enough, or should the family of child just know to always have this document on hand, just in case?

What if the injured kid is an 8 year old child? Should the parents have a say then? How about if the child is on life support but not likely to make it, should the family have any say in when or whether to take them off, or should that be dictated by when it would be best to do so in order to harvest organs?



And I think the presumption should be that we take the course of action that benefits people still alive, and leads to THEIR bodies functioning better, instead of giving all the rights to a carcass that no longer has any use for the organs anyway. If someone has a major problem with their organs being taken, then they should take care of it in advance and opt out...if they don't, then they shouldn't expect that their family will be able to communicate those wishes to the hospital before the doctors take the organs.

Regardless of whether you have an "opt in" system or an "opt out" system, you're going to be making a lot of assumptions about what the deceased would have wanted in most cases, since most people won't take any action and will just get the default treatment. So all else being equal, it's better to err on the side that will actually help people.
Click to expand...

Now, should ER staff notify the families (in those case where they might still have a choice) that they have a right to opt out and they need to opt out if they wish to, or would it just be better to keep that quiet. After all, if you let them know they have an option, they might just take it.
 
Last edited:
Lokiate said:
I don't think it's entirely unfortunate. The last thing you want when a loved one dies is to be removed so some men in white coats can cut your dead open and strip the corpse for parts like the body is just a car parked in the wrong alley.
Click to expand...

It's funny. I believe in organ donation. As I said, I am a designated organ donor, but as soon as the conversation turns from "it's a gift, freely given" to "we got a greater right to it than you or your family does", then my positive feelings about it turn to something very near resentment.
 
X Factor said:
What if the injured kid is an 8 year old child? Should the parents have a say then? How about if the child is on life support but not likely to make it, should the family have any say in when or whether to take them off, or should that be dictated by when it would be best to do so on order to harvest organs?
Click to expand...

So we should keep a brain dead 8 year old alive in a hospital bed till they reach medicare age.....
 
winston53660 said:
So we should keep a brain dead 8 year old alive in a hospital bed till they reach medicare age.....
Click to expand...

So is this an answer to my question? You believe the parents don't get a say?
 
You're very right. Something like a payment to your estate if you sign up. No fortune, maybe $1000-$3000 IF your organs are used. This cost could be billed to the insurer who covers the recipient, it would encourage people to sign up and it will help the family of the donor.


Jerry said:
The problem with body harvesting is that it enables the black market. We can't allow people to sell body parts because folks have been before, still are in a reduced capacity under a ban, and would be again killed so that their parts could be sold.

Likewise, mandating organ donation will increase the number of preventable deaths.

In stead, we should offer some kind of tax incentive for being a voluntary donor.
Click to expand...
 
X Factor said:
It's funny. I believe in organ donation. As I said, I am a designated organ donor, but as soon as the conversation turns from "it's a gift, freely given" to "we got a greater right to it than you or your family does", then my positive feelings about it turn to something very near resentment.
Click to expand...


And I guess I should hate god for giving me a congenital heart defect:roll:

Reality is is it is what it is. I'm going to opt for the opt out system vs the opt in system
 
X Factor said:
It's funny. I believe in organ donation. As I said, I am a designated organ donor, but as soon as the conversation turns from "it's a gift, freely given" to "we got a greater right to it than you or your family does", then my positive feelings about it turn to something very near resentment.
Click to expand...

I'm right there with you. People feel entitled to everything these days. My body, the body of my loved ones, that goes too far. If you ask because you need, I'll do what I can. If you shout and demand that it's magically your right to strip and harvest the corpse of my loved one:

 
specklebang said:
You're very right. Something like a payment to your estate if you sign up. No fortune, maybe $1000-$3000 IF your organs are used. This cost could be billed to the insurer who covers the recipient, it would encourage people to sign up and it will help the family of the donor.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, that's the direction I'm thinking. Depending on what was used, your final medical bill can be a bit smaller.
 
My body is MY property. Even when I am dead. Just like all of my assets. YOU do not get dibs on my body or my assets unless I say you do. I assure you my familiy WILL ENFORCE that by WHATEVER means nessicerry legal or otherwise. As I will with their remains and assets. My body is mine to do with as I wish. If I want to SELL its parts thats MY business and none of yours. If I want GIVE my parts away that too, is MY business and none of yours. Personally I have no problem if someone wants to sell or give their parts off even if they are still alive, but it MUST be their choice. As far the black market goes, it already exists, all selling of organs by legitimate soarces will do is lower how lucritive the black market is. People should not need permission to sell their parts. Its THEIR parts to do with as they see fit. If they sell their parts when they die then they can pass that money on to someone in their family or to whomever else they choose. Its no different than the doctors or hospitals charging for their services to perform the transplants in the first place. Why shouldnt the deceased or the living for that matter get a cut? A large cut at that since they have the needed commodity in the first place. I think a standard contract and rate for various parts be developed so that the people dont get themselves screwed when making the deals. Hell the hospitals harvesting the organs can act the sales reps and put them out to auction, to highest bidder and receive a percentage of the take say ten percent, with the recipient(s) of the organ(s) paying for the harvisting costs.
 
Last edited:
I like the idea of making it opt out rather than opt in but in the end it doesn’t matter what is on your driver’s license. Regardless of what is checked, the hospital is going to follow the wishes of the next of kin so make sure they know your wishes.

That said, if you are not an organ donor you are an asshole.
 
X Factor said:
Well wait a second. "Have no reason to believe it's a "problem". What does that mean? What if a parent says upon notification that their kid's in the hospital that they don't wish their child to be carved up. Is that reason enough, or should the family of child just know to always have this document on hand, just in case?
Click to expand...

That's fine, my point was that it should be presumed consent unless either the person has specifically opted out ahead of time, or if the family manages to notify the hospital before they do it. If the family is able to communicate their wishes to the hospital before they take the organs, fine. If they aren't able to communicate those wishes, then too bad; they should've planned for this possibility ahead of time by opting out.

What if the injured kid is an 8 year old child? Should the parents have a say then?
Click to expand...

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.

How about if the child is on life support but not likely to make it, should the family have any say in when or whether to take them off, or should that be dictated by when it would be best to do so in order to harvest organs?
Click to expand...

Of course they should be able to take them off or not take them off life support; what does this have to do with the topic at hand?

Now, should ER staff notify the families (in those case where they might still have a choice) that they have a right to opt out and they need to opt out if they wish to, or would it just be better to keep that quiet. After all, if you let them know they have an option, they might just take it.
Click to expand...

I've never worked in an ER so I don't know their protocol, but I believe that they normally contact the family as soon as they can.
 
Lokiate said:
I'm right there with you. People feel entitled to everything these days. My body, the body of my loved ones, that goes too far. If you ask because you need, I'll do what I can. If you shout and demand that it's magically your right to strip and harvest the corpse of my loved one:

Click to expand...


So in other words, you're willing to let people die because some third party was mildly rude to you.
 
Last edited:
I'd love if everyone were organ donors! But we have to try to look at this from a legal standpoint. I agree that 'I' don't exist to have ownership of 'my' organs, once I am dead. I would think my family inherits my body, though, as a default, no? It was one of my possessions in life; it should be passed along just the same.

I think there needs to be a change in society rather than a change in law. If we have law forcing changes in people's belief systems for them, it just continues to build resentment against the state. We should instead be shocked and appalled when organs are not donated! And do what we can to change the opinion of society. I.E. as others have suggested, default everyone to be organ donors unless you opt-out.

Per donatelife.org, only 26 states offer organ donation on their driver's license application; only 38.2% of the population are organ donors. I agree there is obviously something wrong if 61.8% of our population aren't donating organs. But I think there would be something more wrong with mandating that 61.8% to be organ donors, or their deceased family be organ donors, if that's not already part of their belief system.
 
I have CM stamped on my License. The C is for car and the M is for motorcycle. There's a cute red heart in the lower right hand corner that has 'DONOR' written across the front.

I believe in the opt-in program. I do like Jerry's idea of a donor tax break. That would create some PR for the cause.

If you don't want to donate your organs, for whatever reason, I'm down with that too.
 
If it's a choice at all, people shouldn't have to "opt-out"... of anything.

If you want me to do it, convince me why I should.
 
Kandahar said:
So in other words, you're willing to let people die because some third party was mildly rude to you.
Click to expand...

Appeal to emotion means nothing to me. Demanding that I allow my dead to be hacked up and used for spare parts for ones personal benefit is hardly mild rudeness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom