Should everyone automatically be an organ donor?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

Didn't say anything about rights.  Simply responded to your statement that they should have a say, which they do.  

lostrib

They have a say, they can opt out in this hypothetical.  For someone who argues semantics a lot, you are really not getting this

And I do NOT argue semantics unless some idiot trys to turn it into such. 

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] No they don't. You have to actively find out that your body will harvested. Then you have to find out how to stop that if you don't wish that. It's not donation if taken.LJS9502_basic

They have a say, they can opt out in this hypothetical.  For someone who argues semantics a lot, you are really not getting this

Once again, you said they should have a say.  they do have a say as they can opt out.  

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

They have a say, they can opt out in this hypothetical.  For someone who argues semantics a lot, you are really not getting this

lostrib

Once again, you said they should have a say.  they do have a say as they can opt out.  

Again....the default takes away the right a person has with their body. If you have to fill out forms stating you don't want your body harvested then it is NOT a right. And since I've read abortion threads and no more often than not OT is pro choice I find it rather bizarre that they would consider such an idea as worthy. The TC there is no hope for but I had hoped we had some people intelligent enough to know that the government taking control of bodies as wrong.

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] No you are not getting this. If you have to opt out then it's already been decided what the default is. That is NOT donation.LJS9502_basic

Once again, you said they should have a say.  they do have a say as they can opt out.  

Again....the default takes away the right a person has with their body. If you have to fill out forms stating you don't want your body harvested then it is NOT a right. And since I've read abortion threads and no more often than not OT is pro choice I find it rather bizarre that they would consider such an idea as worthy. The TC there is no hope for but I had hoped we had some people intelligent enough to know that the government taking control of bodies as wrong.

it was a simple correction, holy crap.  They do have a say by having the ability to opt out. If they had no say at all then organ donation would be mandatory.  Holy shit

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

Once again, you said they should have a say.  they do have a say as they can opt out.  

lostrib

Again....the default takes away the right a person has with their body. If you have to fill out forms stating you don't want your body harvested then it is NOT a right. And since I've read abortion threads and no more often than not OT is pro choice I find it rather bizarre that they would consider such an idea as worthy. The TC there is no hope for but I had hoped we had some people intelligent enough to know that the government taking control of bodies as wrong.

it was a simple correction, holy crap.  They do have a say by having the ability to opt out. If they had no say at all then organ donation would be mandatory.  Holy shit

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] You simply aren't getting it. I guess I read you wrong.

 

Again....the default takes away the right a person has with their body. If you have to fill out forms stating you don't want your body harvested then it is NOT a right. And since I've read abortion threads and no more often than not OT is pro choice I find it rather bizarre that they would consider such an idea as worthy. The TC there is no hope for but I had hoped we had some people intelligent enough to know that the government taking control of bodies as wrong.

LJS9502_basic

it was a simple correction, holy crap.  They do have a say by having the ability to opt out. If they had no say at all then organ donation would be mandatory.  Holy shit

Holy shit, it was a simple correction of your statement.  Stop being dense.  Learn to admit when you're wrong

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

it was a simple correction, holy crap.  They do have a say by having the ability to opt out. If they had no say at all then organ donation would be mandatory.  Holy shit

lostrib

Holy shit, it was a simple correction of your statement.  Stop being dense.  Learn to admit when you're wrong

I guess with your logic if I take your car for a spin it's okay since you didn't tell me NOT to do so.

ITT Sir Wander not understanding organ donation and LJ taking things too far yet again.

ITT Sir Wander not understanding organ donation and LJ taking things too far yet again.

StrifeDelivery

I'd think morally I'm on the right track as well.

[QUOTE="StrifeDelivery"]

ITT Sir Wander not understanding organ donation and LJ taking things too far yet again.

LJS9502_basic

I'd think morally I'm on the right track as well.

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] You're really really dense. Not everyone will ever know the default. Period. You cannot assume that someone consents because they haven't withdrawn consent. That's ridiculous and idiotic.LJS9502_basic

Holy shit, it was a simple correction of your statement.  Stop being dense.  Learn to admit when you're wrong

I guess with your logic if I take your car for a spin it's okay since you didn't tell me NOT to do so.

oh my god, are you serious? I know it's the internet but it's okay to be wrong, or even admit something was poorly worded.  You said they should have a say, which they do.  It is not mandatory, they still have a say.  

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

Holy shit, it was a simple correction of your statement.  Stop being dense.  Learn to admit when you're wrong

lostrib

I guess with your logic if I take your car for a spin it's okay since you didn't tell me NOT to do so.

oh my god, are you serious? I know it's the internet but it's okay to be wrong, or even admit something was poorly worded.  You said they should have a say, which they do.  It is not mandatory, they still have a say.  

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I'm not wrong. You are. You avoid all the questions. Nice dodge. But again...a lack of withdrawal of consent is NOT consent.

 

I guess with your logic if I take your car for a spin it's okay since you didn't tell me NOT to do so.

LJS9502_basic

oh my god, are you serious? I know it's the internet but it's okay to be wrong, or even admit something was poorly worded.  You said they should have a say, which they do.  It is not mandatory, they still have a say.  

That's not what I'm talking about.  With an opt out, they still have a say.  I already said earlier that an opt out brings plenty of legal issues.  It was a simple correction that you've now turned into two pages of whining

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

oh my god, are you serious? I know it's the internet but it's okay to be wrong, or even admit something was poorly worded.  You said they should have a say, which they do.  It is not mandatory, they still have a say.  

lostrib

That's not what I'm talking about.  With an opt out, they still have a say.  I already said earlier that an opt out brings plenty of legal issues.  It was a simple correction that you've now turned into two pages of whining

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] You're really really dense. Not everyone will ever know the default. Period. You cannot assume that someone consents because they haven't withdrawn consent. That's ridiculous and idiotic.LJS9502_basic

Holy shit, it was a simple correction of your statement.  Stop being dense.  Learn to admit when you're wrong

I guess with your logic if I take your car for a spin it's okay since you didn't tell me NOT to do so.

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Prove it. Prove that every single individual would have both the knowledge and mental capacity to understand that.LJS9502_basic

That's not what I'm talking about.  With an opt out, they still have a say.  I already said earlier that an opt out brings plenty of legal issues.  It was a simple correction that you've now turned into two pages of whining

Ignorance does not remove the fact that you still have a say.  Just let it go, you poorly worded a statement.  And I already said that opt out wasn't the best option, jesus christ.  

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

That's not what I'm talking about.  With an opt out, they still have a say.  I already said earlier that an opt out brings plenty of legal issues.  It was a simple correction that you've now turned into two pages of whining

lostrib

Ignorance does not remove the fact that you still have a say.  Just let it go, you poorly worded a statement.  And I already said that opt out wasn't the best option, jesus christ.  

[QUOTE="StrifeDelivery"]

ITT Sir Wander not understanding organ donation and LJ taking things too far yet again.

LJS9502_basic

I'd think morally I'm on the right track as well.

And yet other countries are doing just fine with being opt-out vs. being opt-in, but as long as you're moral, who cares right?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="StrifeDelivery"]

ITT Sir Wander not understanding organ donation and LJ taking things too far yet again.

StrifeDelivery

I'd think morally I'm on the right track as well.

And yet other countries are doing just fine with being opt-out vs. being opt-in, but as long as you're moral, who cares right?

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]No, but you should probably have some idea how it works before you start arguing about it.SirWander

But no mention of it was made in the OP.

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Dodging again. If you've never been told you have to opt out how do you have a say? If you are mentally slow and don't understand how do you have a say?LJS9502_basic

Ignorance does not remove the fact that you still have a say.  Just let it go, you poorly worded a statement.  And I already said that opt out wasn't the best option, jesus christ.  

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Dodging again. If you've never been told you have to opt out how do you have a say? If you are mentally slow and don't understand how do you have a say?LJS9502_basic

Ignorance does not remove the fact that you still have a say.  Just let it go, you poorly worded a statement.  And I already said that opt out wasn't the best option, jesus christ.  

they still have a say.  Jesus fvcking christ.  let it go

I don't. I just shake my head at the stupidity like I see in this thread. I mean seriously people don't see the legal ramifications and denial of rights when you treat bodies as harvest-able organs.LJS9502_basic

It's almost as if there is this naivete so strong that it ventures on the nonsensical. An op-out program will not increase the number of readily available, transferable organs in a a significant manner as the OP seems to imply that it will. A large majority of parents will choose to have their children op-out. People that have religious reasons for not being donors in the first place will op-out. People that are not comfortable with the idea of their organs being used will op-out. etc.

The point is when confronted with the choice of being an organ donor, people would rather not think about it. Which is why there seems to be a dearth of organ donors. It is not difficult to become an organ donor, it is remarkably and stupidly easy. Every licensed driver should have already made the decision to become an organ donor. An op-out system will not change the situation of readily available organs. Why? For the same reasons people don't choose to become organ donors in the first place.

A decision already made for you is not a choice freely given. Sure choosing not to have your organs harvested is as about as easy as agreeing to donate your organs after you die. What it won't do is make that decision any more comfortable for most people.

[QUOTE="StrifeDelivery"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] From a legal standpoint....I'm right. The rest of you....not so much.;)

 

I'd think morally I'm on the right track as well.

LJS9502_basic

And yet other countries are doing just fine with being opt-out vs. being opt-in, but as long as you're moral, who cares right?

Spain and Austria come to mind, also it seems the European system is more opt-out than opt-in.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I don't. I just shake my head at the stupidity like I see in this thread. I mean seriously people don't see the legal ramifications and denial of rights when you treat bodies as harvest-able organs.SirWander

It's almost as if there is this naivete so strong that it ventures on the nonsensical. An op-out program will not increase the number of readily available, transferable organs in a a significant manner as the OP seems to imply that it will. A large majority of parents will choose to have their children op-out. People that have religious reasons for not being donors in the first place will op-out. People that are not comfortable with the idea of their organs being used will op-out. etc.

The point is when confronted with the choice of being an organ donor, people would rather not think about it. Which is why there seems to be a dearth of organ donors. It is not difficult to become an organ donor, it is remarkably and stupidly easy. Every licensed driver should have already made the decision to become an organ donor. An op-out system will not change the situation of readily available organs. Why? For the same reasons people don't choose to become organ donors in the first place.

A decision already made for you is not a choice freely given. Sure choosing not to have your organs harvested is as about as easy as agreeing to donate your organs after you die. What it won't do is make that decision any more comfortable for most people.

[QUOTE="SirWander"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]No, but you should probably have some idea how it works before you start arguing about it.MrGeezer

But no mention of it was made in the OP.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="StrifeDelivery"]

And yet other countries are doing just fine with being opt-out vs. being opt-in, but as long as you're moral, who cares right?

StrifeDelivery

Spain and Austria come to mind, also it seems the European system is more opt-out than opt-in.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="SirWander"]

But no mention of it was made in the OP.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="SirWander"]

But no mention of it was made in the OP.

LJS9502_basic

SirWander made a statement previously that they were going to just go around sticking AIDS riddled organs into people, which is simply not true

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I don't. I just shake my head at the stupidity like I see in this thread. I mean seriously people don't see the legal ramifications and denial of rights when you treat bodies as harvest-able organs.SirWander

It's almost as if there is this naivete so strong that it ventures on the nonsensical. An op-out program will not increase the number of readily available, transferable organs in a a significant manner as the OP seems to imply that it will. A large majority of parents will choose to have their children op-out. People that have religious reasons for not being donors in the first place will op-out. People that are not comfortable with the idea of their organs being used will op-out. etc.

The point is when confronted with the choice of being an organ donor, people would rather not think about it. Which is why there seems to be a dearth of organ donors. It is not difficult to become an organ donor, it is remarkably and stupidly easy. Every licensed driver should have already made the decision to become an organ donor. An op-out system will not change the situation of readily available organs. Why? For the same reasons people don't choose to become organ donors in the first place.

A decision already made for you is not a choice freely given. Sure choosing not to have your organs harvested is as about as easy as agreeing to donate your organs after you die. What it won't do is make that decision any more comfortable for most people.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I don't. I just shake my head at the stupidity like I see in this thread. I mean seriously people don't see the legal ramifications and denial of rights when you treat bodies as harvest-able organs.SirWander

It's almost as if there is this naivete so strong that it ventures on the nonsensical. An op-out program will not increase the number of readily available, transferable organs in a a significant manner as the OP seems to imply that it will. A large majority of parents will choose to have their children op-out. People that have religious reasons for not being donors in the first place will op-out. People that are not comfortable with the idea of their organs being used will op-out. etc.

The point is when confronted with the choice of being an organ donor, people would rather not think about it. Which is why there seems to be a dearth of organ donors. It is not difficult to become an organ donor, it is remarkably and stupidly easy. Every licensed driver should have already made the decision to become an organ donor. An op-out system will not change the situation of readily available organs. Why? For the same reasons people don't choose to become organ donors in the first place.

A decision already made for you is not a choice freely given. Sure choosing not to have your organs harvested is as about as easy as agreeing to donate your organs after you die. What it won't do is make that decision any more comfortable for most people.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/business/economy/27view.html?_r=0

"Consider the difference in consent rates between two similar countries, Austria and Germany. In Germany, which uses an opt-in system, only 12 percent give their consent; in Austria, which uses opt-out, nearly everyone (99 percent) does. "

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"] Of course not, because there was no need. It's common f***ing knowledge that organ donation doesn't involve just sticking organs in people with first testing them. Why should he have to explicitly mention something that's just common freaking knowledge?lostrib

SirWander made a statement previously that they were going to just go around sticking AIDS riddled organs into people, which is simply not true

The true problem in the lack of organs donors lies in the fact that there are no positive consequences to signing on while having no negative consequences to signing off. People who refuse to be a organ donor should not be able to receive organs from others, it is as simple as that.

Of course not, because there was no need. It's common f***ing knowledge that organ donation doesn't involve just sticking organs in people with first testing them. Why should he have to explicitly mention something that's just common freaking knowledge?MrGeezer

Unstated premises can be wildly interpreted. The TC doesn't have to do anything; but I fail to see how these implications are a way to deny any point of contention?

The true problem in the lack of organs donors lies in the fact that there are no positive consequences to signing on while having no negative consequences to signing off. People who refuse to be a organ donor should not be able to receive organs from others, it is as simple as that.

rastotm

that's idiotic

The true problem in the lack of organs donors lies in the fact that there are no positive consequences to signing on while having no negative consequences to signing off. People who refuse to be a organ donor should not be able to receive organs from others, it is as simple as that.

rastotm

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]There is a small window of time to transplant. Generally if the organ is deemed compatible with the new body and the family has given the medical profession information on the individual the organ is transplanted. I'm not sure what tests you are talking about.LJS9502_basic

SirWander made a statement previously that they were going to just go around sticking AIDS riddled organs into people, which is simply not true

The true problem in the lack of organs donors lies in the fact that there are no positive consequences to signing on while having no negative consequences to signing off. People who refuse to be a organ donor should not be able to receive organs from others, it is as simple as that.

rastotm

The true problem in the lack of organs donors lies in the fact that there are no positive consequences to signing on while having no negative consequences to signing off. People who refuse to be a organ donor should not be able to receive organs from others, it is as simple as that.

rastotm

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]There is a small window of time to transplant. Generally if the organ is deemed compatible with the new body and the family has given the medical profession information on the individual the organ is transplanted. I'm not sure what tests you are talking about.LJS9502_basic

SirWander made a statement previously that they were going to just go around sticking AIDS riddled organs into people, which is simply not true

Certain organs have a small window, as you have said LJ (hearts, lungs, kidneys, etc.). However, there are certain tissues that have longer lifespans regarding ligaments, heart valves, bones, corneas, etc. And yes, they do test organs for disease and general health.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

SirWander made a statement previously that they were going to just go around sticking AIDS riddled organs into people, which is simply not true

Person0

[QUOTE="rastotm"]

The true problem in the lack of organs donors lies in the fact that there are no positive consequences to signing on while having no negative consequences to signing off. People who refuse to be a organ donor should not be able to receive organs from others, it is as simple as that.

lostrib

that's idiotic

[QUOTE="rastotm"]

The true problem in the lack of organs donors lies in the fact that there are no positive consequences to signing on while having no negative consequences to signing off. People who refuse to be a organ donor should not be able to receive organs from others, it is as simple as that.

LJS9502_basic

pretty much only do kidney and liver while you're alive.  Lung is also possible

And then bone marrow, if that counts

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"] Of course not, because there was no need. It's common f***ing knowledge that organ donation doesn't involve just sticking organs in people with first testing them. Why should he have to explicitly mention something that's just common freaking knowledge?SirWander

Unstated premises can be wildly interpreted. The TC doesn't have to do anything; but I fail to see how these implications are a way to deny any point of contention?

It's not the TC's job to give you a full course on what organ donation is. If you don't know anything about it, perhaps you should look into before commenting on things you don't know anything about.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="rastotm"]

The true problem in the lack of organs donors lies in the fact that there are no positive consequences to signing on while having no negative consequences to signing off. People who refuse to be a organ donor should not be able to receive organs from others, it is as simple as that.

lostrib

pretty much only do kidney and liver while you're alive.  Lung is also possible

And then bone marrow, if that counts

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="rastotm"]

The true problem in the lack of organs donors lies in the fact that there are no positive consequences to signing on while having no negative consequences to signing off. People who refuse to be a organ donor should not be able to receive organs from others, it is as simple as that.

rastotm

that's idiotic

so your idea is to let a bunch more people die?  you realize you can't just give away organs to random people right?

Or I guess all those people who can't be organ donors are just shit out of luck?

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] So people that have never donated blood shouldn't be given blood? Not very humane dude.....and frankly how would one be an organ donor if they are still alive? I suppose you could do kidney....but that is risky and most people won't do that unless it's for family.LJS9502_basic

pretty much only do kidney and liver while you're alive.  Lung is also possible

And then bone marrow, if that counts

yeah, but kidney, liver, lung (rare) are pretty much the only living donor procedures.