| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
eXistence of Fly
Pointy Sticks & Ponies!
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Post Count: 4193
Location: Obel
1155138 Potch
7700 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 11:32 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
| Leb wrote: |
| There's actually a fee in the state of California if you choose not to register as a donor. It's only two or so dollars, but I think that's a decent alternative to the automatic system. |
Of course there is no reason to fee people who choose not to register as a donor despite the measly amount to pay and personally I'm a tad surprised that those who have signed up as donors haven't tried auctioning their organs to form a human black market in such a case. You would assume much like with any enterprise that the current organ donor situation you'd have family members of the deceased attempting to barter organs at wholesale prices!
I agree with Uji's train of thought however in that this shouldn't be an opt out practice and instead should be opt in merely for what could go wrong with the opt out practice in unfortunate circumstances.
| Tonberry wrote: |
| And in any case, dead people don't need organs. |
Ah but would this encompass clinical death, so by your train of thought should you meet an unfortunate end and said doctor removes one of your kidneys before reviving you you wouldn't be pissed off with him removing it because "heyz you were dead, mines now!" hypothetical of course considering it's completely unethical, but if you agree with a process you also have to take into consideration the extremity of that situation.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
iscalio
Joined: 28 Mar 2004
Post Count: 8370
1681589 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| eXistence of Fly wrote: |
| Ah but would this encompass clinical death... |
Obviously it doesn't, so your hypothetical situation is completely irrelevant. Brain death is a categorical prerequisite for organ donation everywhere. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eXistence of Fly
Pointy Sticks & Ponies!
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Post Count: 4193
Location: Obel
1155138 Potch
7700 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| iscalio wrote: |
Obviously it doesn't, so your hypothetical situation is completely irrelevant. Brain death is a categorical prerequisite for organ donation everywhere. |
So iscalio, all joking aside my point is quite valid considering that approach to brain death which is being considered as true death as opposed to cardiac death in that depending on your perception of death for all intents and purposes the only dead in your body at time of harvesting is the brain and that the body reacts as a normal persons body would much like the opposite where the heart stops and the brain continues on.
Why then are you so quick to dismiss one format of death for the other when both are applicable, they are symmetric for all intents and purposes and you cannot say 100% that mankind will not find a way to revive the brain like they found a way to revive a still heart. Your dismissing of the hypothetical despite the ethical and extreme standard it would set, shows a lack of foresight into the medical progression and opens a whole new can of worms should that progression ever be made. or are you the type of individual who dislikes looking ahead when implementing something of this magnitude and would "deal with it when it happened" which by all means would be far too late to do anything about it.
Removed several paragraphs of iscalio bashing for my Kikito buddy! Much wubbles <3
_________________
Last edited by eXistence of Fly on Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:58 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iscalio
Joined: 28 Mar 2004
Post Count: 8370
1681589 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
I will not comment on the details of your curious diatribe. I'll just point that you yourself wondered whether or not Tonberry's opinion that "dead people don't need organs" would apply to those that are only clinically dead. Since Tonberry made his statement in regard to the possible new organ donation policy we are talking about in this thread, I pointed out that he was obviously only referring to brain dead patients (since those are the only ones this possible new policy would affect). And since a brain dead patient cannot possibly wake up anymore and thus cannot possibly be "pissed" about a missing kidney, I pointed out that your hypothetical scenario was irrelevant.
I did not take possible false diagnoses of brain death into account, nor do I think that would have been necessary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tonberry
The Tonberry Eggsperience
Joined: 09 Mar 2005
Post Count: 18319
Location: Budehuc Castle
1819401 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Well, I had not considered this rather contrived scenario and if that offends you, Fly, I'm terribly sorry, but unless a doctor's definition of death is grossly different from mine, there really shouldn't be any problem with unethical organ-seizing. As far as I'm concerned, if I'm "clinically dead," I'm still alive, and I'm sure most people would agree with me. However, if I'm really dead, or brain dead, I really don't have any need for any of my organs, and that's what my original post was meant to convey. :| |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eXistence of Fly
Pointy Sticks & Ponies!
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Post Count: 4193
Location: Obel
1155138 Potch
7700 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| iscalio wrote: |
I will not comment on the details of your curious diatribe. I'll just point that you yourself wondered whether or not Tonberry's opinion that "dead people don't need organs" would apply to those that are only clinically dead. Since Tonberry made his statement in regard to the possible new organ donation policy we are talking about in this thread, I pointed out that he was obviously only referring to brain dead patients (since those are the only ones this possible new policy would affect). And since a brain dead patient cannot possibly wake up anymore and thus cannot possibly be "pissed" about a missing kidney, I pointed out that your hypothetical scenario was irrelevant.
I did not take possible false diagnoses of brain death into account, nor do I think that would have been necessary. |
Ah iscalio san, however the article links that family members where the person is incapable of opting out may indeed opt out on behalf of said individual, thus in effect acting pissed because said person would be pissed at such an occurrence. Conveyance of the persons feelings would then be much like the person itself feeling it would it not? Transmission medium differs but the angst and emotion does not.
Also I stated "clinical death" in which, as I pointed out before there are 2 types. Medical loophole to your claim that I only meant cardiac death.
Since. however, my question was more towards Ton tons approach to death and not your own, of which you are proving differs from person to person in this regard, and should the hypothetical become real in 10 or years which is a possibility, I shall promptly wait for a reply from Ton ton either way, and hope that you don;t find it offensive that I effectively snub the rest of your points.
Edit: Timing much :D
| Tonberry wrote: |
| Well, I had not considered this rather contrived scenario and if that offends you, Fly, I'm terribly sorry, but unless a doctor's definition of death is grossly different from mine, there really shouldn't be any problem with unethical organ-seizing. As far as I'm concerned, if I'm "clinically dead," I'm still alive, and I'm sure most people would agree with me. However, if I'm really dead, or brain dead, I really don't have any need for any of my organs, and that's what my original post was meant to convey. |
No offence taken my good man.. turtle thingy, never could figure out what they actually were. :P It was more merely looking for your definition of alive since your statement was rather general and medical notes have stated that as of 2000 organs were harvested from brain dead people while their body was effectively still alive (heart pumping and blood flow so as to harvest the organs "freshly") and that anaesthesia was used to calm the body's response to the surgery. So of course from this, if one was of the opinion that the body needs both the heart and brain to stop they might not consider this practice humane or true death.
So while I understand your point now that you've explained it, I hope that you had no misgivings as to my original context in querying your opinion.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Amyral
Windriders
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Post Count: 1355
Location: Sawgrass Landing
544907 Potch
4066 Soldiers
620 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Honestly, I had wondered why we didn't have a system like this years ago when I first registered. I thought it was rather clear, once you're of age, you're automatically in unless you don't want to be in.
Yeah, I'm sure some would opt out, but I really think the number of those that would opt in would be far greater than those who would just not care either way. I can see the invasive argument, sure, but really, but I think a dead person really has no more need for privacy. They could just make it a simple option, when you get a license/work visa/ID card/passport/whatever comes first, you can specifically opt out of it, or at any time afterwards.
For the medical ethics option, I could see that for less ethical doctors, but I grew up in a family with people in the medical business, so I don't think there would be an epidemic as people might think. That and the fact that, theoretically, there would be more organs so there wouldn't be the need. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seraphblade
imaginary soldiers
Joined: 06 Jan 2007
Post Count: 11674
Location: The Attic
935122 Potch
0 Soldiers
7777 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| unless a doctor's definition of death is grossly different from mine, there really shouldn't be any problem with unethical organ-seizing. |
The definition of death is actually a highly debated to topic in bioethics. I would look it up the argument, but I don't have my bioethics book anymore :|
As for the ethics of organ seizing, I definitely agree that dead don't need them, but then this goes back to religion or those who just plain want their organs in tact after death. Of course we all know that it's "better" to have more people consider organ donation, but the system kind of forces people to take action, and in a democratic society people don't like to be forced to do something. So I'll to go with Uji's opt in approach rather than the opt out.
If the ethics of the physician is the concern, I see it as less of a problem in the UK as compared to the US if the United Stated something like this, mainly because of the profit-based health care system we have here. Physicians under our system will be more encouraged by health insurers (through bonuses) to convinced patients who are indefinitely hospitalized to consider terminal sedation or the families of brain dead patients (or take the more broad definition of death of other patients) to agree to passive euthanasia, to save the insurer money. After which, the organs will be harvested. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jossef
Beshennye Berserki
Joined: 03 Aug 2005
Post Count: 1739
Location: Lion's Maw
95809 Potch
200 Soldiers
23 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I genuinely hope that this becomes a law for the whole of the United Kingdom. If the media informs me correctly, several surveys have shown that the majority of Britons wouldn't mind donating their organs after death but cannot be bothered to sign up to do so.
Having more organs available can only be more beneficial and the pros certainly outweigh the cons, in my opinion.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ujitsuna
Red Shoes Dance
Joined: 24 May 2006
Post Count: 4823
Location: Pale Plains
936547 Potch
12000 Soldiers
675 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| How about a form be sent to every house in the UK with the option to opt in? The houses that don't reply won't get put on the register. That to me makes more sense and gets people who actually want their organs harvested involved rather than a law effectively making everyone's organs property of the government once they die. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ley
Username
Joined: 02 Aug 2004
Post Count: 2586
Location: Leylands
441125 Potch
0 Soldiers
550446 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hayashi Ujitsuna wrote: |
| How about a form be sent to every house in the UK with the option to opt in? The houses that don't reply won't get put on the register. That to me makes more sense and gets people who actually want their organs harvested involved rather than a law effectively making everyone's organs property of the government once they die. |
Homeless people? A source of untapped body parts from sources unwanted in the first place. Deal with two issues in one fell swoop.
What would be a lot better and much more effective is if there is a tick box on your voting registration form, so that if you want to vote, you have to be able to make an adult choice about whther or not you want your body parts donated after your death.
_________________
Can anyone tell I'm bored? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AA
Spears of the Sand
Joined: 25 Dec 2005
Post Count: 7645
Location: Mar-Uruk
366104 Potch
200 Soldiers
3121 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The old system isn't broken, all they need to do is make it easier for people to opt in rather than make the default to be opting in. Under the new system it will just be the same, people putting off opting out, much like how people wish to opt in now a days but never actually get round to doing it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sniper_Zegai
Gaien Magic Men
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Post Count: 1169
Location: England, UK
659144 Potch
850 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Personally, everyone I know who disagrees with organ donation ussually disagree very strongly, so I think the people who will be incredibly opposed to this law are the kind of people who would make an active effort to take themselves of the list.
I wanted to be an organ donar and I think its something thats very noble. Using organs from a dead person to save the lives of people in dire need is something I can get behind, and I would have put myself on the list if I knew how to go about it.
Ultimatly this law will save lives, and for those people who dont agree with it can easily have their names removed from the list with relative ease. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jossef
Beshennye Berserki
Joined: 03 Aug 2005
Post Count: 1739
Location: Lion's Maw
95809 Potch
200 Soldiers
23 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sniper_Zegai wrote: |
| Personally, everyone I know who disagrees with organ donation ussually disagree very strongly, so I think the people who will be incredibly opposed to this law are the kind of people who would make an active effort to take themselves of the list. |
I agree with this, the people who don't want to donate their organs seem to be more involved than the people who wouldn't really mind but can't be bothered signing up to donate. Even if the form was given to each household, the amount of people who would get around to actually doing so would still be pretty low because people are that indifferent.
The concept of allowing the people with a strong opposition to organ donating to opt out seems to make more sense to me. There still aren't enough people who care enough about donating organs to do so, so why not allow the people who care enough about not donating them opt out? This way there are more organs available from people who don't really care about the whole thing.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eXistence of Fly
Pointy Sticks & Ponies!
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Post Count: 4193
Location: Obel
1155138 Potch
7700 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jossef wrote: |
| Sniper_Zegai wrote: |
| Personally, everyone I know who disagrees with organ donation ussually disagree very strongly, so I think the people who will be incredibly opposed to this law are the kind of people who would make an active effort to take themselves of the list. |
I agree with this, the people who don't want to donate their organs seem to be more involved than the people who wouldn't really mind but can't be bothered signing up to donate. Even if the form was given to each household, the amount of people who would get around to actually doing so would still be pretty low because people are that indifferent. |
That would ultimately depend on where, if anything, the form is attached to as people are far more likely to fill in something honestly and have an opinion if they know that they'll be contributing to something (and no, saving Joe Schmo doesn't count since no one cares about anyone but themselves) so if perhaps it was bundled with the census governments release to households it would have a larger impact then if the form was just released solo to individual households.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
