Mandatory post-mortem organ donation

[MoonWater]

What do you think of the concept of mandatory post-mortem organ donation? Basically what this means is that whenever a person died all usable organs and fluids (i.e. blood) would be removed from from the body to be donated to those who need them and this would be legally required of every corpse. Would you be in favor of such legislation? against? why would you hold that position? Do you feel this would violate freedom of religion for those who would object to it based on religious reasons or that exceptions should be allowed for such individuals, or would you agree with it being a blanket requirement if it were implemented? Do you think "religious objections" act as a justifiable reason for not donating one's organs after death? Could there possibly be non-religious reasons for not making this a legal requirment?

You don't have to try and answer ALL the questions, I'm just throwing some stuff out there to get the ball rolling.

 

[Tarheeler]

I don't like it.

Your body is your property, and it's your decision what to do with it when you die (or your executor/next of kin if you didn't specify). This would be just as bad telling a living person what they can or cannot do with their body.

I think any reason, religious or otherwise, a person has for not donating organs is a "justifiable" reason.

 

[Willamena]

What do you think of the concept of mandatory post-mortem organ donation? Basically what this means is that whenever a person died all usable organs and fluids (i.e. blood) would be removed from from the body to be donated to those who need them and this would be legally required of every corpse. Would you be in favor of such legislation? against? why would you hold that position? Do you feel this would violate freedom of religion for those who would object to it based on religious reasons or that exceptions should be allowed for such individuals, or would you agree with it being a blanket requirement if it were implemented? Do you think "religious objections" act as a justifiable reason for not donating one's organs after death? Could there possibly be non-religious reasons for not making this a legal requirment?

You don't have to try and answer ALL the questions, I'm just throwing some stuff out there to get the ball rolling.

I think it's unnecessary. That organs are available doesn't mean that organs will be used. Also, that such a thing is legislated automatically defies the will of the people, in that not everyone would conceivable think this way.

 

[JayJayDee]

This is being talked about in Australia too. But I think we would have the option of stating exceptions as to how it should be done. Instead of signing up for organ donation before death and family members being able to veto that decision, they want to introduce organ donation as a first option, and then the patient's wishes are taken into account, without being able to be stopped by emotional family members. It's such a bad time for those kinds of decisions. But if it is the patient's clearly stated wish that organs be donated, more people would benefit from the donations.

Apparently, they can nominate what organs they will or will not donate to comply with the religious beliefs of the patient, not the family....which I suppose is fair.

Some people still see organ donation as a form of cannibalism, whilst others just see the possibility of saving many lives from the unfortunate death of one person. Each must make his own decision based on what his conscience dictates. The consciences of family members should not alter a person's choice IMO.

 

[MoonWater]

I don't like it.

Your body is your property, and it's your decision what to do with it when you die (or your executor/next of kin if you didn't specify). This would be just as bad telling a living person what they can or cannot do with their body.

I think any reason, religious or otherwise, a person has for not donating organs is a "justifiable" reason.

Even though your not using it anymore and said body would just rot away?

How is it "just as bad as telling a living person what they can or cannot do with their body?"

This also brings up other philosophical questions like can someone still own their body if they are dead and if so how? Does the bodily sovereignty of someone who is dead overrule the right to life of someone in need of an organ transplant?

I did my best to word these so that they wouldn't come off as loaded questions but I don't think I succeeded very well. Sleep deprivation does that to me:sleep:. Please understand I'm not trying to single you out or call you out or anything, I just want to understand your position better.

 

[Badran]

What do you think of the concept of mandatory post-mortem organ donation? Basically what this means is that whenever a person died all usable organs and fluids (i.e. blood) would be removed from from the body to be donated to those who need them and this would be legally required of every corpse. Would you be in favor of such legislation? against? why would you hold that position? Do you feel this would violate freedom of religion for those who would object to it based on religious reasons or that exceptions should be allowed for such individuals, or would you agree with it being a blanket requirement if it were implemented? Do you think "religious objections" act as a justifiable reason for not donating one's organs after death? Could there possibly be non-religious reasons for not making this a legal requirment?

You don't have to try and answer ALL the questions, I'm just throwing some stuff out there to get the ball rolling.

I don't think it's practical or very ethical.

I don't think it's practical because passing such legislation and forcibly doing something like that disregarding how people feel seems extremely problematic. Though there would be benefits, it seems outweighed by the sheer amount of objection that would undoubtedly come from a lot of people, and the attempts they might make to avoid it happening.

I don't think it's very ethical in terms of those who specifically state that they don't want something like that done to them. Even though they'll be dead, i don't think that's a comfortable area for me. To take an "ex-person's" organs and blood despite of their disapproval of such. Seems way too practical and authoritative to me.

Given the emotional and intellectual aspects regarding death, and how many people struggle with it, i think we would do well to appreciate each other's differences better than to disregard the wishes of others and instead salvage whatever we can from them.

A better way is just what's already being done. Essentially, convince more people to allow for donating their organs when they die.

 

[MoonWater]

This is being talked about in Australia too. But I think we would have the option of stating exceptions as to how it should be done. Instead of signing up for organ donation before death and family members being able to veto that decision, they want to introduce organ donation as a first option, and then the patient's wishes are taken into account, without being able to be stopped by emotional family members. It's such a bad time for those kinds of decisions. But if it is the patient's clearly stated wish that organs be donated, more people would benefit from the donations.

Apparently, they can nominate what organs they will or will not donate to comply with the religious beliefs of the patient, not the family....which I suppose is fair.

Some people still see organ donation as a form of cannibalism, whilst others just see the possibility of saving many lives from the unfortunate death of one person. Each must make his own decision based on what his conscience dictates. The consciences of family members should not alter a person's choice IMO.

That actually sounds like a very good way to do it: have organ donation as the default with the option for people to opt out later if they so choose.

but that still leaves the question of whether or not someone should have the right to opt out of such a thing considering the life saving benefits of organ donation? Should they be able to regardless or should only certain reasons be acceptable and how far is too far when it comes to implementing this?

It really is a tricky balance between saving lives and personal freedom and the idea above may be the best compromise between them.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

I'm safe. By the time I cark it, I would have already got full usage out of all my organs (especially my liver) - trust me. lol

Even my corneas aren't any good anymore.

Having said that, it shouldn't be compulsory. That means the dead body becomes the 'property of the state' and not the family. That is wrong.

It's also one step closer towards a society where all our personal freedoms and liberties no longer apply.

Just grow more human ears on mice...lol

 

[MoonWater]

I've seen some fair points so far.

I personally have no problem with organ donation, nor would I have any objection to such legislation on ethical grounds (though true, practically it could be unfeasible). But then that's because I simply see a dead body as an empty shell, it's not being used by that person anymore so may as well put it to use to save as many lives as possible. In my mind it seems like a very basic act of compassion and I would actually be honored to have my organs given to another to save their life (assuming I were aware of it)

But then that's my own perspective and I can definitely see how such a law would be considered unethical in terms of how to enforce it.

 

[Tarheeler]

Even though your not using it anymore and said body would just rot away?

Yep, even though.

How is it "just as bad as telling a living person what they can or cannot do with their body?"

Because it is still us even when the lights are out and everything is over. Telling me I legally must fork over my body when I die is no different than telling me I must go fight a war, I can't get a tattoo, I have to stop drinking , or my wife can't get an abortion. In a legalistic sense, our bodies are our property. We get to decide what we do with it, in both life and death.

This also brings up other philosophical questions like can someone still own their body if they are dead and if so how? Does the bodily sovereignty of someone who is dead overrule the right to life of someone in need of an organ transplant?

Yes. My choice on what happens to my body takes precedent over someone who might need pieces of it. I get to decide what to do with it, just as I get to decide what to do with my house and other property.

I did my best to word these so that they wouldn't come off as loaded questions but I don't think I succeeded very well. Sleep deprivation does that to me:sleep:. Please understand I'm not trying to single you out or call you out or anything, I just want to understand your position better.

Lol, no worries.

And, just for the record, I'm a registered organ donor; I'm certainly not going to need than when I die. But I bristle at the idea that I can be forced to part out my body after I die regardless of my wishes.

 

[Badran]

This is being talked about in Australia too. But I think we would have the option of stating exceptions as to how it should be done. Instead of signing up for organ donation before death and family members being able to veto that decision, they want to introduce organ donation as a first option, and then the patient's wishes are taken into account, without being able to be stopped by emotional family members. It's such a bad time for those kinds of decisions. But if it is the patient's clearly stated wish that organs be donated, more people would benefit from the donations.

Apparently, they can nominate what organs they will or will not donate to comply with the religious beliefs of the patient, not the family....which I suppose is fair.

Some people still see organ donation as a form of cannibalism, whilst others just see the possibility of saving many lives from the unfortunate death of one person. Each must make his own decision based on what his conscience dictates. The consciences of family members should not alter a person's choice IMO.

I too think that's reasonable. As here it's a question of the person's own wishes against those of his/her family, rather than the community/state's wishes against the person (and possibly his family too).

 

[JayJayDee]

That actually sounds like a very good way to do it: have organ donation as the default with the option for people to opt out later if they so choose.

but that still leaves the question of whether or not someone should have the right to opt out of such a thing considering the life saving benefits of organ donation? Should they be able to regardless or should only certain reasons be acceptable and how far is too far when it comes to implementing this?

It really is a tricky balance between saving lives and personal freedom and the idea above may be the best compromise between them.

Yes, I believe that balance is the key. There should not be an arbitrary government body who snatches organs without the permission of the one donating them. If the patient has religious objections to anything, they must be clearly stated before the organs are harvested. This is such an emotional issue, which should be dealt with long before there is a need for discussion over a patient's body. :sad:

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

I hear that money is a great motivator.

If people are given enough to become an organ donor after death, they will.

Why should others profit by another's death? I mean, apart from saving a life?

I mean, we pay our rates, taxes, bills...the government just takes and takes while we are still alive and now they want our dead bodies too?

The government can have my organs over my dead body...oh wai...

 

[Quintessence]

Any system for donation should not be an opt-out system. It's a sneaky, underhanded way of doing the same thing you really wanted to do in the first place: force people to do what you want instead of giving them a choice. Opt-out systems are flawed because people are never universally aware of all laws, frequently fail to plan for the future ahead of time, and may not be capable of expressing their desire to opt-out in the first place. No. The default should never be donation unless someone opts-out.

 

[Slapstick]

What do you think of the concept of mandatory post-mortem organ donation?

I think it depends on what the person died of before anything can be considered mandatory. It isn't mandatory to the person that died, but may be to the person that needs an extra organ.

Basically what this means is that whenever a person died all usable organs and fluids (i.e. blood) would be removed from from the body to be donated to those who need them and this would be legally required of every corpse.

Again, it depends on what the person died of or from. If they died from AIDS then it is probably best they keep their organs. If they died a natural death and had no other complications then it may be considered.

Would you be in favor of such legislation? against? why would you hold that position? Do you feel this would violate freedom of religion for those who would object to it based on religious reasons or that exceptions should be allowed for such individuals, or would you agree with it being a blanket requirement if it were implemented? Do you think "religious objections" act as a justifiable reason for not donating one's organs after death? Could there possibly be non-religious reasons for not making this a legal requirement?

I think donating organs to someone else that “needs them” is just prolonging that persons death. I would say there would or should be other factors involved before donating organs other than the simple fact of just donating them.

 

[ChristineES]

While I am personally a registered organ donor when I die, I don't think it should be forced on people. It might be against someone's personal beliefs or the family's personal beliefs.

 

[Me Myself]

What do you think of the concept of mandatory post-mortem organ donation? Basically what this means is that whenever a person died all usable organs and fluids (i.e. blood) would be removed from from the body to be donated to those who need them and this would be legally required of every corpse. Would you be in favor of such legislation? against? why would you hold that position? Do you feel this would violate freedom of religion for those who would object to it based on religious reasons or that exceptions should be allowed for such individuals, or would you agree with it being a blanket requirement if it were implemented? Do you think "religious objections" act as a justifiable reason for not donating one's organs after death? Could there possibly be non-religious reasons for not making this a legal requirment?

You don't have to try and answer ALL the questions, I'm just throwing some stuff out there to get the ball rolling.

I think to the VERY LEAST it should be de defautl position and it should be a choure to try to change it.

I think we shouldnt have a default desire to value a human corpse more than a human life or several, as the current system allows.

You are dead. Your greed NEEDS TO STOP WHEN YOU ARE NOT EVEN HERE. Dont let someone die if the need an organ you are not using anymore...

Though TBH the only reason I havent made some legal stuff thingy tomake sure my organs are donable is that it feels like bad luck and I am superstitious on those things but I ve told my relatives so they can give the permission if something is needed, so technically I am all good.

 

[Me Myself]

I hear that money is a great motivator.

If people are given enough to become an organ donor after death, they will.

Why should others profit by another's death? I mean, apart from saving a life?

I mean, we pay our rates, taxes, bills...the government just takes and takes while we are still alive and now they want our dead bodies too?

The government can have my organs over my dead body...oh wai...

By "the government" you mean a kid who will die without the heart of your dead carcass?

 

[averageJOE]

If it cuts down on funeral cost then I say do what ever you want.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

By "the government" you mean a kid who will die without the heart of your dead carcass?

To answer that, I'll do so by answering another thing:

You are dead. Your greed NEEDS TO STOP WHEN YOU ARE NOT EVEN HERE.

So does everybody else's.

'Take my advice for those who die...declare the pennies on your eyes...taxman!' - George Harrison