• 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
You're really going to quote Star Trek?

Did I quote something from Star Trek?

*looks up quote*

Ah, it seems I did. Purely unintentional I can assure you; I've never actually watched much Star Trek, nor seen the films.

The truth behind the statement still stands though.
 
Did I quote something from Star Trek?

*looks up quote*

Ah, it seems I did. Purely unintentional I can assure you; I've never actually watched much Star Trek, nor seen the films.

The truth behind the statement still stands though.

It kind of contradicts your statement, since there are far more people who don't need an organ transplant, than those who do. Is organ donation the morally right thing to do for a person of healthy, disease free physique? Absolutely, but is it moral for the government to mandate it? I don't believe so, and furthermore, I see a multitude of problems that would face such a mandate. Most of which can and will lead to death in organ receiving patients due to faulty tests, and mistakes in labeling due to an increase in fresh organs, coupled with the intensely strict time limits caused by the very short shelf life of organs.

The system is what needs to change, not how we get the organs.
 
I answered 'no', but I am a firm supporter of organ donation.

However, if people don't specify in their wills whether or not to donate their organs, I think we should ask their loved ones about donation.
 
It kind of contradicts your statement, since there are far more people who don't need an organ transplant, than those who do. Is organ donation the morally right thing to do for a person of healthy, disease free physique? Absolutely, but is it moral for the government to mandate it? I don't believe so, and furthermore, I see a multitude of problems that would face such a mandate. Most of which can and will lead to death in organ receiving patients due to faulty tests, and mistakes in labeling due to an increase in fresh organs, coupled with the intensely strict time limits caused by the very short shelf life of organs.

The system is what needs to change, not how we get the organs.

We don't have to harvest all possible organs, just enough to ensure that those who need those organ transplants acquire them. This wouldn't involve too many corpses being harvested, additionally concerning those corpses that are harvested, the families could be persuaded as to why corpse harvesting is a beneficial action (note: the actual corpse itself doesn't need to be torn apart completely, nor taken from the family forever; what is needed can be taken, and the remaining body given back to the family so that it can be properly buried).

Now while you may find compulsory organ donation as being immoral, I see it as something that is moral, given that I don't trust people to risk making a selfish and emotive decision at the expensive of a human life. I mean, when would it ever be acceptable to allow selfish and emotive decisions at the cost of lives in any other situation?

Now concerning the matter of malpractice as the result of systematic organ harvesting; there's no reason to assume that such bad practices will become so commonplace that they result in negative consequences that outweigh the benefits of extra organ inventory. Doctors and medical staff would be smart enough to ensure that donated organs are inspected like with any other organ donation procedure, and safety quality standards would be adhered to in order to ensure the utmost safety of patients. Yes, it might occur, but not to any sever extend (and if you still think otherwise, I would like to see concrete evidence to support your argument).
 
It kind of contradicts your statement, since there are far more people who don't need an organ transplant, than those who do. Is organ donation the morally right thing to do for a person of healthy, disease free physique? Absolutely, but is it moral for the government to mandate it? I don't believe so, and furthermore, I see a multitude of problems that would face such a mandate. Most of which can and will lead to death in organ receiving patients due to faulty tests, and mistakes in labeling due to an increase in fresh organs, coupled with the intensely strict time limits caused by the very short shelf life of organs.

The system is what needs to change, not how we get the organs.

That is ****ing hilarious. The bolded part of course.
 
That is ****ing hilarious. The bolded part of course.

sure, if you think people dying from transplants is a laughing matter, with the risk of such rising as the demand rises.

Infected organs pose deadly transplant risk

No question, most transplants are safe — and necessary. More than 28,000 are performed in the U.S. each year, but 108,000 people need the operations and more than 6,500 die waiting.

As demand for transplants grows, however, concern about safety is rising, too. Many transplant experts are calling for better screening and tracking of donors, even as others worry that extra steps will slow down transplants and risk wasting urgently needed organs.

No one knows how many diseases are transmitted through infected organs, said Dr. Matthew Kuehnert, director of the Office of Blood, Organ and Other Tissue Safety at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The U.S. does not have a national surveillance system in place to monitor disease transmission after donation, and a landmark report last fall suggested that the nation’s periodic monitoring is patchy at best.

The United Network for Organ Sharing, which oversees transplants, began requiring reports of disease transmission in 2004. Since then, they’ve been steadily rising, from seven reports of diseases from donors in 2005 to 152 reports in 2009.

Just imagine what happens when organ harvesting becomes compulsory. Just imagine how many it is three years later. A real laugh riot.
 
Last edited:
sure, if you think people dying from transplants is a laughing matter, with the risk of such rising as the demand rises.

Infected organs pose deadly transplant risk



Just imagine what happens when organ harvesting becomes compulsory. Just imagine how many it is three years later. A real laugh riot.


If my organs are failing what is the choice?
 
While I think organ donation should be encouraged, it should remain the voluntary choice of the donor concerned (and/or his next of kin after death if the person did not express any view prior to death). A person is not the property of the state to be disposed of as it chooses, even after death.
 
While I think organ donation should be encouraged, it should remain the voluntary choice of the donor concerned (and/or his next of kin after death if the person did not express any view prior to death). A person is not the property of the state to be disposed of as it chooses, even after death.

The state will tell you how to dispose of a carcass. It is a public health issue. One can not just dump the body in the local lake.
 
The state will tell you how to dispose of a carcass. It is a public health issue. One can not just dump the body in the local lake.

True. But that doesn't mean the body is the state's property and it can do with it what it wants.
 
So in other words, you're willing to let people die because some third party was mildly rude to you.

I'm willing to let them die because their time is up and it is the natural order of things.

Also, what caused the need in the first place? Smoking, drinking, obesity, diabetes, genetic defect? If the government mandates organ donation, then how much more control over our daily lives will they try to exert to make sure we keep our organs healthy?

If it is made the default choice, then how do the doctor know the organs are even viable and can be transplanted? Do the doctors at hospitals doing the harvesting have all the medical information on someone who has just been killed? Can they get that information in time? Do you really want to pass on the liver of someone who had/has hepatitis but who didn't bother to uncheck the option? How would the doctors know if they have/had hep without a full screening of medical records?

I don't know very much about how they can check such things. I personally am not an organ donor. I have way to many health issues and I am also not allowed to donate blood. But if I die in some way they could harvest my organs, how would those doctors know anything?

Making anything like organ donations mandatory or even making it the default option opens up to many bad things to happen that shouldn't.
 
All we hear about is organ donation ...
What about pianos? I've been waiting half my life for someone to donate a piano to me.
 
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.

What you propose would exert sovereignty over others. In life or death, each person is sovereign only unto themselves, their minor children and those to whom they give it to. No other person ever has the "right" to claim sovereignty over any other person against their will. Each and every person only has the right to what they create or earn for themselves and nothing gives anyone the right to take from others for their own selfish gain.
 
As an advocate of cryonics I vehemently oppose the inability to 'opt-out' however I have no problem with an assumption of opting in.

A lot of countries have adopted a presumption of acceptance where you have to specifically indicate that you do not wish to be an organ donor. This dramatically increases access to organs but still offers those who object with the option of excluding themselves.
 
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.

Actually, if the government is to assume ownership after death as people here have advocated, then the government should pay for burial (afterall, it's government property now, right?).
 
What you propose would exert sovereignty over others. In life or death, each person is sovereign only unto themselves, their minor children and those to whom they give it to. No other person ever has the "right" to claim sovereignty over any other person against their will. Each and every person only has the right to what they create or earn for themselves and nothing gives anyone the right to take from others for their own selfish gain.

You'll wait a long time for a response from the OP. Strange that this thread is back from being dormant for so long, but it was an interesting discussion at the time (and still is).
 
Well, I think people have rights while alive, so I would never advocate for mandatory euthanasia.

I does not matter what you'd advocate for. Once a society determines that a body after death becomes the property of the State, then no wealthy and powerful person is going to want to wait around for the right donor match to ensure good health immediately.

More things WILL become criminal acts requiring the death penalty, and people who are poor and dispossessed will be convicted and executed merely to meet the growing demand for their organs.

Your body does not stop being "yours" simply because you die. You have the right to determine the disposition of it when you die by electing to be an organ donor, or not. If you fail to make such an election, the default should be NO you don't wish to donate.

The State never owns you, alive or dead. It would be foolish to set such a precedent granting government this power simply due to an appeal to emotion.
 
Last edited:
Now that is a disturbing image in so many ways.

The local church especially has been after my organ for many years, I refuse to donate it to them when I die.

pipe-organ.jpg
 
I'm willing to let them die because their time is up and it is the natural order of things.

Also, what caused the need in the first place? Smoking, drinking, obesity, diabetes, genetic defect? If the government mandates organ donation, then how much more control over our daily lives will they try to exert to make sure we keep our organs healthy?

If it is made the default choice, then how do the doctor know the organs are even viable and can be transplanted? Do the doctors at hospitals doing the harvesting have all the medical information on someone who has just been killed? Can they get that information in time? Do you really want to pass on the liver of someone who had/has hepatitis but who didn't bother to uncheck the option? How would the doctors know if they have/had hep without a full screening of medical records?

I don't know very much about how they can check such things. I personally am not an organ donor. I have way to many health issues and I am also not allowed to donate blood. But if I die in some way they could harvest my organs, how would those doctors know anything?

Making anything like organ donations mandatory or even making it the default option opens up to many bad things to happen that shouldn't.

WTH??? Why would you think the procedure/tests etc would be any different if it was mandatory donation? It would still be the same and the organs would only go to people with compatible blood and tissue types. (don't take this to mean I am for mandatory donation, I'm not - I was just addressing a point)

You may think they wouldn't want your organs, but you never know. At the very least, they may use tissues and skin ie skin can be used on burn victims until their own skin grows back.
 
organ mafia would kill you to sell your organs to the state
 
I am a registered donor but I am vehemently against mandatory organ donation, even on an opt out basis. Sorry, but nobody has a RIGHT to anyone's organs, tissue, blood etc. It is through the generosity of voluntary donors that transplant is possible and it needs to stay that way. It would be govt way, way, way overstepping it's bounds.
 
The local church especially has been after my organ for many years, I refuse to donate it to them when I die.

pipe-organ.jpg

But, I'm sure with such a magnificent organ if you did insert it within the church you could make many people scream "Oh God!" and "Sweet Jesus!" during the climax of their worship experience.
 
Back
Top Bottom