Bill to donate organs by default... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

KnifeMissile · 02-17-2006, 02:48 AM

This article describes how the province of Ontario is considering a bill to make organ donations automatic. That means that if you don't want your organs to be donated, you put a sticker on your health card, rather than the opposite (which is what we currently have).

Quote:

The question of whether to make Ontario the first jurisdiction in Canada to allow hospitals to harvest organs from dying patients who don’t register an objection is proving a weighty one for the province’s elected officials.

New Democrat member Peter Kormos introduced a private member’s bill today that would presume consent for organ donations from any dying patient who hasn’t already made their wishes clear.

It would reverse the current system, which requires people to sign a donor card and obtain the consent of family before any organs or tissue can be harvested.

“To date, it was considered an exceptional act to donate an organ,” Kormos said as he introduced his bill.

“I put to you that it’s time in Ontario for it to be considered an exceptional act to deny an organ where it could save a life or extend a life.”

Everyone in the legislature today expressed support for a discussion about how to increase the dismally small number of organs that are made available for transplant in the province each year.

Not everyone, however, supports Kormos’s controversial idea.

Chief government whip Dave Levac said he won’t vote for the legislation as it stands, but said he’s fully in favour of using the opportunity to find other ways to boost the province’s low rate of organ donation.

Members will be free to vote their conscience on the bill, and Levac said he hopes it sparks constructive debate.

“I recommend strongly that it go to committee so that we can hear from all the stakeholders, because it’s controversial in nature — you’re asking people to automatically do the reverse negative billing thing again,” Levac said.

“I think the intent is absolutely noble; it’s important for us to understand the important nuances of organ donation.”

Several other Liberals, New Democrats and Conservatives, including Health Minister George Smitherman, said they would vote for the bill because too many people die while waiting for a transplant because an organ’s not available.

Others remained wary of an idea that, like Levac, they liken to the controversial practice of negative-option billing, which touched off a firestorm of public outrage in 1995 against Canada’s cable companies.

Cable subscribers either had to agree to pay for a costly new package of specialty channels or risk losing channels they already received. Several companies, including Rogers Cablesystems, acquiesced to the anger and backed off the plan.

Conservative Leader John Tory, a former Rogers executive, said he doesn’t support the bill, but welcomes the discussion. He’ll allow Conservative members a free vote on the legislation, he added.

“I would prefer if we try informing people better as to what they have to do in order to donate their organs,” Tory said.

There needs to be a high-profile education campaign before moving to something more “intrusive” like presumed consent, he added.

Mary Ellen Douglas, a national organizer for the Campaign Life Coalition, said presumed consent would violate people’s rights.

“Negative optioning, which has been tried by people like the cable companies, has never worked, so here we are trying the same type of negative optioning with human life,” she said.

“We don’t think this is a good idea.”

The bill won’t be debated until the next legislative session sometime in the spring, Kormos said, and may only get one hour of second-reading debate.

Kormos said it’s irrelevant whether the legislation passes, since it has sparked talk by legislators and will open minds to a controversial issue that makes some squeamish.

“Members from all parties have expressed interest in the proposal, the public has certainly shown interest in it and it’s important then that the premier’s office and the government keep tuned in to where the public is at,” Kormos said.

“This may be a case where the public shows leadership where the government hasn’t.”

Kormos said he hopes the Liberal government comes forward with organ-donation legislation of its own that reflects more modern, open values.

I think it's about time we did something like this. I mean, really, your organs are no good to you after you die...
They should harvest your blood, while they're at it, too!

Nisses · 02-17-2006, 03:07 AM

And everything they don't manage to harvest, should be grinded, pressed and sold as little green tablet-shaped snacks to feed the poor

I just hope they give it enough publicity, so that people that don't actually want this, can pay a good amount to keep what was theirs after their death... (Because I'm sure the cost for that 'sticker' will suddenly go up by a couple of factors of 10)

Destrox · 02-17-2006, 03:41 AM

Its about time really, this is going to save so many lives.

AngelicVampire · 02-17-2006, 04:45 AM

Personally I am against it, why should they have the option to harvest your body, surely your body is yours and should remain so. I personally do no wish to donate any organs, nor do I wish to recieve any.

Its odd that so many people are for privacy (in life), keeping their information secret etc however are happy to let the government pry through your corpses without your consent?

highthief · 02-17-2006, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngelicVampire

Personally I am against it, why should they have the option to harvest your body, surely your body is yours and should remain so. I personally do no wish to donate any organs, nor do I wish to recieve any.

Its odd that so many people are for privacy (in life), keeping their information secret etc however are happy to let the government pry through your corpses without your consent?

Exactly. While on a lot of levels I agree with organ donation, making your body the property of the government to with as it pleases is completely wrong. The current system is fine, people just need to be encouraged to actually use it.

hulk · 02-17-2006, 05:28 AM

You're dead - you have no privacy, property nor need for internal organs. I'd assume they would still consult the families involved. Have you known anyone on an organ donor list? Dialysis? It's a horrible experience.

Jackebear · 02-17-2006, 05:32 AM

I think it's a good idea and at the very least it will encourage discussion on how to improve the waiting times for transplant patients.

One thing I would suggest is that once someone signed the card and the hospital finds it in their wallet/purse, they should go ahead and harvest the organs once the patient has passed on.

Right now, grieving parents, iffy wives/husbands can refuse to donate the organs of a loved one even though they have signed the card. I have heard of cases where this has happened. What an insult to the deceased! They signed the card, thinking that they were doing the right thing and someone who is related to them stops the doctors from performing the harvest. Or the doctors can't contact someone soon enough to make sure they have the secondary consent and the timeframe passes for harvesting the organs.

At the least, I believe they should make the card a legal document and allow the holder to make the decision. No one should be allowed to circumvent my decision to donate my organs.

This is going to be a hot topic around the water cooler for the next little while...cool.

maleficent · 02-17-2006, 05:36 AM

While I think everyone should be an organ donor, kind of like why I think that everyone should be a blood donor, I don't like the idea of an opt out program... The money that they'd spend to tell people of this program, would be better spent reminding people of the good things that come from organ donation... you're dead anyhow - why do you need your organs...

guthmund · 02-17-2006, 05:58 AM

I think this is a fine idea.

I think everyone should be an organ donor. In fact, I think hospitals should harvest as much as humanly possible after you die, but that's another day.

It's not compulsory; there's an opt out program. Surely those that feel they have to hang on to every last bit of flesh for whatever reason, can remember to get their little sticker, eh?

Bill O'Rights · 02-17-2006, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maleficent

...you're dead anyhow - why do you need your organs...

I want my organs removed through my nose, placed into canopic jars, and guarded over by the 4 sons of Horus.

ratbastid · 02-17-2006, 06:06 AM

I'm all for this. If they ask about it at drivers license renewal time, they'll have everybody's wishes recorded in a few years time, and then they can begin the new procedures. It doesn't have to cost extra money to educate people about it.

Charlatan · 02-17-2006, 06:12 AM

I agree with ratbastid. All it will take is an extra minute or so for the person at the counter, when renewing your driver's license to explain that if you don't want to donate, you need to affix the sticker.

If you are renewing by mail, there is flashy flyer in the envelope telling you about the new sticker.

Ustwo · 02-17-2006, 06:37 AM

I am an organ donor and I find this concept wrong.

This is like the Colombia record company where if you don't send in the card saying you don't want their next three albums they will charge you for them automatically. Its not about education, its about assuming the public is stupid, and lazy and that others know whats best for them and theirs. Rather than continue to educate the public and make such practices acceptable to society, it counts on people just being lazy.

It takes no more effort to make yourself a organ donor than to make yourself not one, yet they want to change the system. When I got my drivers license they asked me if I wanted to be an organ donor, I rather doubt they will ask the same type of question if they had this policy, they will basically 'sneak' it in on you, hoping everyone forgets after a few years.

Even if the concept is good I find the method reprehensible. Its saying by default the government owns your body unless you say otherwise.

Charlatan · 02-17-2006, 06:42 AM

So what, you were thinking of using your shell once you were done with it? Maybe have it stuffed and mounted on the mantle piece.

I could care less what they do with my remains. I will be dead.

Ustwo · 02-17-2006, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

So what, you were thinking of using your shell once you were done with it? Maybe have it stuffed and mounted on the mantle piece.

I could care less what they do with my remains. I will be dead.

This has nothing to do with the question though. You don't care about your shell and thats fine, be an organ donor, have your body stuffed, whatever, but its YOUR choice. This is just trying to be sneaky.

JustJess · 02-17-2006, 06:53 AM

On the one hand, I see no reason why you shouldn't be an organ donor. When I die, if there's anything useful, I want it used and then for the rest to be cremated. My husband knows this too, and knows that I would be furious if he didn't allow the donation.

That being said... I do agree that the rules regarding consent should change. If I sign the back, I meant it, and no family member who is freaked out about my dying should be able to change that.

However... I think default agreement to donation is a dangerous road. Hospitals are under tremendous pressure in these situations to get organs for needy people - I don't want them to be in any kind of decision making position. They're not unbiased and I am afraid of them getting a little eager. What if you don't have your donor card on you? Does that mean you don't donate, or they assume you do? And people are lazy and often stupid. I would be more comfortable with that meaning they are not donating than that they are - because there are lots of people who aren't really comfortable with donating organs. No, I don't agree with them and I think they should change their minds. But it's not our place to change it for them.

Charlatan · 02-17-2006, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

This has nothing to do with the question though. You don't care about your shell and thats fine, be an organ donor, have your body stuffed, whatever, but its YOUR choice. This is just trying to be sneaky.

Actually, the more I think on it, I agree.

There just needs to be stronger pressure on people to do the right thing.

alansmithee · 02-17-2006, 07:05 AM

Why is organ donation the "right" thing? You're dead, why does it matter if someone lives or dies afterwards? Personally, I'm vehemently opposed to organ donation. I want nobody benefitting from my death. If there's any way, I want my body irradiated after I die just so nothing will be able to use it.

As for this law, it's horrible. Your body is property just like the rest of your estate. Would people support a law that said "unless specifically stated, when you die your estate is donated to charity"? It's the same exact thing, others by default deciding what's best for your estate after you die.

hulk · 02-17-2006, 07:10 AM

The right thing? Let's see, because it stops children from dying from kidney failure? Gives mothers and fathers a few more years to spend with their families? You don't continue to own your house after you die - it goes to whoever you nominate, or failing that, your family chooses the course of action. If there's none, it does go to charity. Your family would still have the final call on whether your organs went or not.

Reese · 02-17-2006, 07:18 AM

I think those that do not want thier organs to be donated are more outspoken and therefore more likely to sign a paper to opt out of donating, whereas a person that would like to be a donor may not care enough to opt-in to a donor program. This is why I believe that donating organs by default is the best thing. I wouldn't say it's targeting the lazy, It's more like it's catering to the lazy.

Something I'd also add to the bill is that if you opt out of giving organs, you also opt out of receiving them.

Edit: alansmithee, If there is no one to inherit your property when you die the state confiscates all of your property. If you don't want to donate that's fine, get a sticker.

Daval · 02-17-2006, 07:30 AM

I am all for implied consent. This will save a lot of lives.

I do think this should be for internal organs only though. I think that if someone wants to go a step farther and donate a body to medical science or testing, or face or arm transplants (could happen regularily down the line) then there should be an informed consent (card filled out like now). But for internal organs, implied is fine by me.

Sultana · 02-17-2006, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cybermike

Something I'd also add to the bill is that if you opt out of giving organs, you also opt out of receiving them.

Interesting thought cybermike!!

I personally don't have any problem with this. I also plan to be an organ donor, if possible. There's a choice, everyone can make it, many people will benefit more than can be expressed.
Can you imagine, no waiting list for organ transplants? Wow. That would be phenominal, a renaissance in medical history, I'd think.

If I could be an organ receiver, I'd like to put in a request for Charlatan's heart.

pan6467 · 02-17-2006, 08:02 AM

Personally, when I am dead, I am dead and if they can use anything more power to them.

I think this is part of the price Canadians must pay for their universal healthcare. It may in fact lower costs for transplants, dialysis (because people maybe able to get transplants faster), heart disease and so on.

I don't see what the problem is unless it is a religious thing for you.

Now if they were to say, "we will harvest 1 of your kidneys while you are alive and anything we can use if you are comatose".... then it's a whole new ballgame.

But once you're dead your going to be at the mercy of the government anyway. And here in the US sites for graveyards are becoming less and less available.

Personally, I want my organs harvested and the rest of me cremated and 1/2 spread on a golf course and 1/2 spread in the Indians ballpark (provided Cleveland still has a team).

Charlatan · 02-17-2006, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sultana

If I could be an organ receiver, I'd like to put in a request for Charlatan's heart.

It's pretty mangy but it you want it, it's yours.

Sgoilear · 02-17-2006, 09:06 AM

As an organ donor myself I'm cautiously in favor of this. At the very least some consideration needs to be given to the family of the deceased though. A person might not be using their body anymore but the surviving family certainly deserves a say in how the remains of their loved one are disposed. I expect in most cases the family will have no difficulty with the concept but I can picture a few situations where they might.

AngelicVampire · 02-17-2006, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cybermike

I think those that do not want thier organs to be donated are more outspoken and therefore more likely to sign a paper to opt out of donating, whereas a person that would like to be a donor may not care enough to opt-in to a donor program. This is why I believe that donating organs by default is the best thing. I wouldn't say it's targeting the lazy, It's more like it's catering to the lazy.

Something I'd also add to the bill is that if you opt out of giving organs, you also opt out of receiving them.

Edit: alansmithee, If there is no one to inherit your property when you die the state confiscates all of your property. If you don't want to donate that's fine, get a sticker.

But why should you need a sticker to opt out? What about those people who disagree but not strongly enough to go get a sticker? What if they "lose" your sticker?

A system that automatically makes you open to use is going to be abusable more so that one which requires you to opt in and carry your card such that anyone without a card cannot be harvested.

Also opting out of recieving organs is hard, can you if comatose say no I don't want them? Or again if you have lost your card and get forced into taking an organ (forced organ implantation... odd concept).

The state doesn't by default take your property though, by default it goes to your next of kin does it not? (If not then I need a will and fast, my manga collection is not going to the government!). There are also ways to keep your property belonging to you despite being "dead", a lot of the cryonauts are keeping or at least trying to their estates intact for when they are revived.

alansmithee · 02-17-2006, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hulk

The right thing? Let's see, because it stops children from dying from kidney failure? Gives mothers and fathers a few more years to spend with their families? You don't continue to own your house after you die - it goes to whoever you nominate, or failing that, your family chooses the course of action. If there's none, it does go to charity. Your family would still have the final call on whether your organs went or not.

What do any of the listed things have to do with "right"? If I'm dead, I really don't give a rat's ass about children dying, or parents spending more time with their families.

And this bill would make organ donation mandatory, your family wouldn't decide if you donated organs or not. It would be like if your estate was taken in the absence of a will, regardless of family imput.

alansmithee · 02-17-2006, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cybermike

Edit: alansmithee, If there is no one to inherit your property when you die the state confiscates all of your property. If you don't want to donate that's fine, get a sticker.

True. But if there's family, they don't confiscate your property either. And they do make efforts to find relatives. Why should I have to go out of my way to not have my body desecrated? If you want to donate, they ask when you get a licence, and upon renewal. You get the sticker.

highthief · 02-17-2006, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hulk

You're dead - you have no privacy, property nor need for internal organs. I'd assume they would still consult the families involved. Have you known anyone on an organ donor list? Dialysis? It's a horrible experience.

So it's OK if they go scour the cemetaries and dig up your mom, dad, brother, sister, child, even if they had not wished it?

While, like I said, I like the concept of organ donation, to say you and your family give up rights to your body after death runs contrary to many people's religious and spiritual beliefs. Maybe they'll start digging people up to clone them for organs too?

No, it's terrible when people are hurt and need organs, but there is a better. mutually satisfactory way to go.

Zeraph · 02-17-2006, 01:51 PM

Gee all this talk of my body being my property even after I'm dead has made me realize how badly the government is screwing us! Do you know where your shit goes? The whole sewer network is a government thing! They could be DIGGING IN YOUR SHIT RIGHT NOW! Did you give them permission to dig through your shit? Or treat your sewage so that its better for the environment? I sure didn't. And what about your cut hair when you go to a barber? What if theyre using it to make wigs for cancer patients?! OMG! That's my hair.

Paq · 02-17-2006, 02:04 PM

at first glance, i think it's sneaky and a bad idea and sets a bad precedence..namely, your body is the gov'ts after death..not kosher for some. I am an organ donor and i encourage anyone else to do the same, but i don't think it should be manditory for everyone...on the other hand, after reading some of hte responses, etc, i have to say i like the program. The people who do not wish to be involved will find out about it and will opt out. The ones who either don't care or want to donate will do so and more people will benefit.

ziadel · 02-17-2006, 02:11 PM

it really doesnt surprise me that this is happening in canada. jesus harold christ, why don't you people just ditch the maple leaf and go for a hammer and sickle motif?

this all just goes back to how people think they're entitled to whatever they want. you are not entitled to anything. no one owes you anything. You're dealt a hand, you play that hand, end of story. To think that people will now have to go through extra steps to basically keep people from looting their corpse is ourtageous!

I am an organ donor. and I am really serious about candad just going communist, actually no, your not going communist, you pretty much already are. Yes I have had family members on an organ waiting list, but unlike the legislators in canada, they knew they were'nt entitled to anything so I did'nt hear a lot of bitching.

ziadel · 02-17-2006, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I think this is part of the price Canadians must pay for their universal healthcare.

I thought the price canadians paid for their healthcare was generally only being able to receive shoddy healthcare?

a lot of people look to canada as this shining beacon in the darkness, they hold it up as this model of perfection. It's not, if anything its a model of what not to do.

pig · 02-17-2006, 02:43 PM

I would be somewhat concerned that this would turn into a defacto bank of extra organs for people with $$$, harvested from the corpses of people without $$$. Poor people don't necessarily have cars, they don't always have identification, etc. I support the concept of organ donation, and I want my junk given out as soon as I'm really good and dead - but I'm not sure I like a system that inherently assumes the right to harvest your organs. At the least, I think that there should be a lot of public awareness associated with any such move.

This post paid for by Harvest The Homeless, a not for profit organization.

msh58 · 02-17-2006, 10:39 PM

my basic view of doctors is they try to save lives, regardless of the person. Theres some i wouldn't want saved, especially if its my organ doing the saving, i mean not everyone is a cute, cuddly light of the universe. Kind of bothers me with giving blood that who knows who's life you just saved. Might be the life of someone who guns your family down the next day, who knows? Anyway think it would be a good movie anyway

i don't like the default idea.

cyrnel · 02-17-2006, 10:54 PM

I predict many surprised families when it comes time to handle final matters and the new "default" causes a dissection/dismemberment delay and a change of open-casket funeral plans.

Use the current publicity for education, make opt-in a classy option, but tank the proposition.

Reese · 02-18-2006, 12:47 AM

Quote:

But why should you need a sticker to opt out? What about those people who disagree but not strongly enough to go get a sticker? What if they "lose" your sticker?

People will go out of their way to benifit themselves, but getting someone to make even the smallest effort to help someone else damn near impossible. Those that agree but not strongly enough to go out of their way to get a sticker are preventing up to 8 people from receiving organs. Because they were lazy they killed 8 people, If this law were to pass, a person would save up to 8 lives by not giving a shit.

Quote:

True. But if there's family, they don't confiscate your property either. And they do make efforts to find relatives. Why should I have to go out of my way to not have my body desecrated? If you want to donate, they ask when you get a licence, and upon renewal. You get the sticker.

If there's no documentation about your wishes, your family is the one that is going to decide whether of not to donate your organs. You can explain your wishes to them and hope they remember if the time comes, and hope they obey your wishes, or you can answer a simple yes or no question when you get your license.

Basically all that NOT signing the back of your license does is puts the burden of making the choice on your family. It groups you with all the people that don't give a shit so the hospital is going to assume you're lazy and ask your family. Unless you've gone out of your way to make your wishes clear to your family, it's very possible they will make a choice you do not agree with. It gives the people that do not want to donate a very clear posistion while catering to 'those that agree but strongly enough.'

And, I have a 'sticker.' or the equivalent of one anyways.

I would have to read the whole bill before I could truely agree or disagree with it though.

Plaid13 · 02-18-2006, 12:47 AM

sounds like a horrible idea but... the way we have it now isnt right. it should just be a simple yes or no question that everyone is asked when they renew there liscense or whatever. something nice and simple so people that want to donate will instead of just putting it off because they are lazy. and its just wrong to assume that someone wants to donate. im sure there are people who believe if they are gutted like that after death they wont be able to rest or whatever. its just not right. personaly i am a donor but i can see why many people wouldnt want to be. Myself as a atheist after im dead you can throw my body in a ditch or grind me up into hotdog meat and feed them to kids in some third world country. i really dont care. But if someone believes that you need your whole body together after death to pass on to whatever happens after death dosnt realize someone wants to take there organs..... that persons family will think they will never rest or go to heaven or get a free cookie or whatever they believe.

AngelicVampire · 02-18-2006, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cybermike

People will go out of their way to benifit themselves, but getting someone to make even the smallest effort to help someone else damn near impossible. Those that agree but not strongly enough to go out of their way to get a sticker are preventing up to 8 people from receiving organs. Because they were lazy they killed 8 people, If this law were to pass, a person would save up to 8 lives by not giving a shit.

Out of curiosity how are you killing those people? They were dead anyway, its more the other way round that if you are willing to donate you can save them from the death penalty, however your actions and inactions don't change the fact that they were dead without your intervention so you not intervening should not be classed as killing them, more like letting nature take its course.

Quote:

If there's no documentation about your wishes, your family is the one that is going to decide whether of not to donate your organs. You can explain your wishes to them and hope they remember if the time comes, and hope they obey your wishes, or you can answer a simple yes or no question when you get your license.

But at least my wishes are being decided by a group of people who know me and the base option is not doing the whole mutilation thing.

Quote:

Basically all that NOT signing the back of your license does is puts the burden of making the choice on your family. It groups you with all the people that don't give a shit so the hospital is going to assume you're lazy and ask your family. Unless you've gone out of your way to make your wishes clear to your family, it's very possible they will make a choice you do not agree with. It gives the people that do not want to donate a very clear posistion while catering to 'those that agree but strongly enough.'

And, I have a 'sticker.' or the equivalent of one anyways.

I would have to read the whole bill before I could truely agree or disagree with it though.

Yes but the hospital has to ask to take anything, while the family can prevent it fairly easily (no). With this system the default is yes, think about license agreements, you can't normally enter into a contract without reading it first and agreeing, the defualt is no.

Reese · 02-18-2006, 04:16 AM

They're not dead already, All you have to do to save their life is give them something you're never going to use again. If you set by and let someone die then you are responsible for thier death. I'm not saying people who have valid reasons for not donating are killers, I'm only talking about those who don't donate because they're too lazy to sign their name and get 2 other signatures on the back of their license. Not that being responsible for deaths is really gonna affect your life, You're not going to be responsible for their deaths until after you die so who gives a shit right? (Note: This may sound a bit harsh when reading but it's not supposed to be that way, so please understand it wasn't mean to be so unpleasant. Text is black and white with no shades of grey.)

How is it Mutilation? The coroner is going to drain all of the blood from your body and replace is with embalming fluid. You don't have to give consent for them to do that, It's just done. When you put your trash out on the curb it's presumed that you don't want it therefore anyone can walk up and take anything they want from it. You're never going to use your organs, you didn't specify what should happen to them in your will, why shouldn't we presume they're trash(or someone else's treasure)?

02-17-2006, 03:07 AM	#2 (permalink)
Nisses Shade Location: Belgium	And everything they don't manage to harvest, should be grinded, pressed and sold as little green tablet-shaped snacks to feed the poor I just hope they give it enough publicity, so that people that don't actually want this, can pay a good amount to keep what was theirs after their death... (Because I'm sure the cost for that 'sticker' will suddenly go up by a couple of factors of 10) __________________ Moderation should be moderately moderated.

02-17-2006, 03:41 AM	#3 (permalink)
Destrox Metal and Rock 4 Life Location: Phoenix	Its about time really, this is going to save so many lives. __________________ You bore me.... next.

02-17-2006, 05:28 AM	#6 (permalink)
hulk C'mon, just blow it. Location: Perth, Australia	You're dead - you have no privacy, property nor need for internal organs. I'd assume they would still consult the families involved. Have you known anyone on an organ donor list? Dialysis? It's a horrible experience. __________________ "'There's a tendency among the press to attribute the creation of a game to a single person,' says Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex." -- From an IGN game review.

02-17-2006, 05:32 AM	#7 (permalink)
Jackebear Insane	I think it's a good idea and at the very least it will encourage discussion on how to improve the waiting times for transplant patients. One thing I would suggest is that once someone signed the card and the hospital finds it in their wallet/purse, they should go ahead and harvest the organs once the patient has passed on. Right now, grieving parents, iffy wives/husbands can refuse to donate the organs of a loved one even though they have signed the card. I have heard of cases where this has happened. What an insult to the deceased! They signed the card, thinking that they were doing the right thing and someone who is related to them stops the doctors from performing the harvest. Or the doctors can't contact someone soon enough to make sure they have the secondary consent and the timeframe passes for harvesting the organs. At the least, I believe they should make the card a legal document and allow the holder to make the decision. No one should be allowed to circumvent my decision to donate my organs. This is going to be a hot topic around the water cooler for the next little while...cool. __________________ Life's jounney is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well-preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn-out shouting, "Holy sh*t! What a ride!" - unknown

02-17-2006, 05:36 AM	#8 (permalink)
maleficent Junkie Moderator Emeritus Location: Chicago	While I think everyone should be an organ donor, kind of like why I think that everyone should be a blood donor, I don't like the idea of an opt out program... The money that they'd spend to tell people of this program, would be better spent reminding people of the good things that come from organ donation... you're dead anyhow - why do you need your organs... __________________ Free your heart from hatred. Free your mind from worries. Live simply. Give more. Expect less.

02-17-2006, 04:45 AM	#4 (permalink)
AngelicVampire Insane	Personally I am against it, why should they have the option to harvest your body, surely your body is yours and should remain so. I personally do no wish to donate any organs, nor do I wish to recieve any. Its odd that so many people are for privacy (in life), keeping their information secret etc however are happy to let the government pry through your corpses without your consent?

02-17-2006, 05:58 AM	#9 (permalink)
guthmund big damn hero	I think this is a fine idea. I think everyone should be an organ donor. In fact, I think hospitals should harvest as much as humanly possible after you die, but that's another day. It's not compulsory; there's an opt out program. Surely those that feel they have to hang on to every last bit of flesh for whatever reason, can remember to get their little sticker, eh? __________________ No signature. None. Seriously.

02-17-2006, 06:06 AM	#11 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	I'm all for this. If they ask about it at drivers license renewal time, they'll have everybody's wishes recorded in a few years time, and then they can begin the new procedures. It doesn't have to cost extra money to educate people about it.

02-17-2006, 06:12 AM	#12 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I agree with ratbastid. All it will take is an extra minute or so for the person at the counter, when renewing your driver's license to explain that if you don't want to donate, you need to affix the sticker. If you are renewing by mail, there is flashy flyer in the envelope telling you about the new sticker. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-17-2006, 06:37 AM	#13 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I am an organ donor and I find this concept wrong. This is like the Colombia record company where if you don't send in the card saying you don't want their next three albums they will charge you for them automatically. Its not about education, its about assuming the public is stupid, and lazy and that others know whats best for them and theirs. Rather than continue to educate the public and make such practices acceptable to society, it counts on people just being lazy. It takes no more effort to make yourself a organ donor than to make yourself not one, yet they want to change the system. When I got my drivers license they asked me if I wanted to be an organ donor, I rather doubt they will ask the same type of question if they had this policy, they will basically 'sneak' it in on you, hoping everyone forgets after a few years. Even if the concept is good I find the method reprehensible. Its saying by default the government owns your body unless you say otherwise. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

02-17-2006, 06:42 AM	#14 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	So what, you were thinking of using your shell once you were done with it? Maybe have it stuffed and mounted on the mantle piece. I could care less what they do with my remains. I will be dead. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-17-2006, 06:53 AM	#16 (permalink)
JustJess Unencapsulated Location: Kittyville	On the one hand, I see no reason why you shouldn't be an organ donor. When I die, if there's anything useful, I want it used and then for the rest to be cremated. My husband knows this too, and knows that I would be furious if he didn't allow the donation. That being said... I do agree that the rules regarding consent should change. If I sign the back, I meant it, and no family member who is freaked out about my dying should be able to change that. However... I think default agreement to donation is a dangerous road. Hospitals are under tremendous pressure in these situations to get organs for needy people - I don't want them to be in any kind of decision making position. They're not unbiased and I am afraid of them getting a little eager. What if you don't have your donor card on you? Does that mean you don't donate, or they assume you do? And people are lazy and often stupid. I would be more comfortable with that meaning they are not donating than that they are - because there are lots of people who aren't really comfortable with donating organs. No, I don't agree with them and I think they should change their minds. But it's not our place to change it for them. __________________ My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

02-17-2006, 07:05 AM	#18 (permalink)
alansmithee Junkie	Why is organ donation the "right" thing? You're dead, why does it matter if someone lives or dies afterwards? Personally, I'm vehemently opposed to organ donation. I want nobody benefitting from my death. If there's any way, I want my body irradiated after I die just so nothing will be able to use it. As for this law, it's horrible. Your body is property just like the rest of your estate. Would people support a law that said "unless specifically stated, when you die your estate is donated to charity"? It's the same exact thing, others by default deciding what's best for your estate after you die.

02-17-2006, 07:10 AM	#19 (permalink)
hulk C'mon, just blow it. Location: Perth, Australia	The right thing? Let's see, because it stops children from dying from kidney failure? Gives mothers and fathers a few more years to spend with their families? You don't continue to own your house after you die - it goes to whoever you nominate, or failing that, your family chooses the course of action. If there's none, it does go to charity. Your family would still have the final call on whether your organs went or not. __________________ "'There's a tendency among the press to attribute the creation of a game to a single person,' says Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex." -- From an IGN game review.

02-17-2006, 07:18 AM	#20 (permalink)
Reese Delicious	I think those that do not want thier organs to be donated are more outspoken and therefore more likely to sign a paper to opt out of donating, whereas a person that would like to be a donor may not care enough to opt-in to a donor program. This is why I believe that donating organs by default is the best thing. I wouldn't say it's targeting the lazy, It's more like it's catering to the lazy. Something I'd also add to the bill is that if you opt out of giving organs, you also opt out of receiving them. Edit: alansmithee, If there is no one to inherit your property when you die the state confiscates all of your property. If you don't want to donate that's fine, get a sticker. __________________ “It is better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick” - Dave Barry Last edited by Reese; 02-17-2006 at 07:27 AM..

02-17-2006, 07:30 AM	#21 (permalink)
Daval Junkie Location: The True North Strong and Free!	I am all for implied consent. This will save a lot of lives. I do think this should be for internal organs only though. I think that if someone wants to go a step farther and donate a body to medical science or testing, or face or arm transplants (could happen regularily down the line) then there should be an informed consent (card filled out like now). But for internal organs, implied is fine by me. __________________ "It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it." Winston Churchill

02-17-2006, 08:02 AM	#23 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Personally, when I am dead, I am dead and if they can use anything more power to them. I think this is part of the price Canadians must pay for their universal healthcare. It may in fact lower costs for transplants, dialysis (because people maybe able to get transplants faster), heart disease and so on. I don't see what the problem is unless it is a religious thing for you. Now if they were to say, "we will harvest 1 of your kidneys while you are alive and anything we can use if you are comatose".... then it's a whole new ballgame. But once you're dead your going to be at the mercy of the government anyway. And here in the US sites for graveyards are becoming less and less available. Personally, I want my organs harvested and the rest of me cremated and 1/2 spread on a golf course and 1/2 spread in the Indians ballpark (provided Cleveland still has a team). __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 02-17-2006 at 08:04 AM..

02-17-2006, 09:06 AM	#25 (permalink)
Sgoilear Tilted Location: Colorado	As an organ donor myself I'm cautiously in favor of this. At the very least some consideration needs to be given to the family of the deceased though. A person might not be using their body anymore but the surviving family certainly deserves a say in how the remains of their loved one are disposed. I expect in most cases the family will have no difficulty with the concept but I can picture a few situations where they might. __________________ "People are always blaming their circumstances for what they are. I don't believe in circumstances. The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they can't find them, make them." -George Bernard Shaw

02-17-2006, 01:51 PM	#30 (permalink)
Zeraph Banned Location: The Cosmos	Gee all this talk of my body being my property even after I'm dead has made me realize how badly the government is screwing us! Do you know where your shit goes? The whole sewer network is a government thing! They could be DIGGING IN YOUR SHIT RIGHT NOW! Did you give them permission to dig through your shit? Or treat your sewage so that its better for the environment? I sure didn't. And what about your cut hair when you go to a barber? What if theyre using it to make wigs for cancer patients?! OMG! That's my hair.

02-17-2006, 02:04 PM	#31 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	at first glance, i think it's sneaky and a bad idea and sets a bad precedence..namely, your body is the gov'ts after death..not kosher for some. I am an organ donor and i encourage anyone else to do the same, but i don't think it should be manditory for everyone...on the other hand, after reading some of hte responses, etc, i have to say i like the program. The people who do not wish to be involved will find out about it and will opt out. The ones who either don't care or want to donate will do so and more people will benefit. __________________ Live. Chris

02-17-2006, 02:11 PM	#32 (permalink)
ziadel Myrmidon Location: In the twilight and mist.	it really doesnt surprise me that this is happening in canada. jesus harold christ, why don't you people just ditch the maple leaf and go for a hammer and sickle motif? this all just goes back to how people think they're entitled to whatever they want. you are not entitled to anything. no one owes you anything. You're dealt a hand, you play that hand, end of story. To think that people will now have to go through extra steps to basically keep people from looting their corpse is ourtageous! I am an organ donor. and I am really serious about candad just going communist, actually no, your not going communist, you pretty much already are. Yes I have had family members on an organ waiting list, but unlike the legislators in canada, they knew they were'nt entitled to anything so I did'nt hear a lot of bitching. __________________ Ron Paul '08 Vote for Freedom Go ahead and google Dr. Ron Paul. You'll like what you read. Last edited by ziadel; 02-17-2006 at 02:18 PM..

02-17-2006, 02:43 PM	#34 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	I would be somewhat concerned that this would turn into a defacto bank of extra organs for people with $$$, harvested from the corpses of people without $$$. Poor people don't necessarily have cars, they don't always have identification, etc. I support the concept of organ donation, and I want my junk given out as soon as I'm really good and dead - but I'm not sure I like a system that inherently assumes the right to harvest your organs. At the least, I think that there should be a lot of public awareness associated with any such move. This post paid for by Harvest The Homeless, a not for profit organization. __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

02-17-2006, 10:39 PM	#35 (permalink)
msh58 Crazy	my basic view of doctors is they try to save lives, regardless of the person. Theres some i wouldn't want saved, especially if its my organ doing the saving, i mean not everyone is a cute, cuddly light of the universe. Kind of bothers me with giving blood that who knows who's life you just saved. Might be the life of someone who guns your family down the next day, who knows? Anyway think it would be a good movie anyway i don't like the default idea.

02-17-2006, 10:54 PM	#36 (permalink)
cyrnel Adequate Location: In my angry-dome.	I predict many surprised families when it comes time to handle final matters and the new "default" causes a dissection/dismemberment delay and a change of open-casket funeral plans. Use the current publicity for education, make opt-in a classy option, but tank the proposition. __________________ There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

02-18-2006, 12:47 AM	#38 (permalink)
Plaid13 I want a Plaid crayon	sounds like a horrible idea but... the way we have it now isnt right. it should just be a simple yes or no question that everyone is asked when they renew there liscense or whatever. something nice and simple so people that want to donate will instead of just putting it off because they are lazy. and its just wrong to assume that someone wants to donate. im sure there are people who believe if they are gutted like that after death they wont be able to rest or whatever. its just not right. personaly i am a donor but i can see why many people wouldnt want to be. Myself as a atheist after im dead you can throw my body in a ditch or grind me up into hotdog meat and feed them to kids in some third world country. i really dont care. But if someone believes that you need your whole body together after death to pass on to whatever happens after death dosnt realize someone wants to take there organs..... that persons family will think they will never rest or go to heaven or get a free cookie or whatever they believe.

02-18-2006, 04:16 AM	#40 (permalink)
Reese Delicious	They're not dead already, All you have to do to save their life is give them something you're never going to use again. If you set by and let someone die then you are responsible for thier death. I'm not saying people who have valid reasons for not donating are killers, I'm only talking about those who don't donate because they're too lazy to sign their name and get 2 other signatures on the back of their license. Not that being responsible for deaths is really gonna affect your life, You're not going to be responsible for their deaths until after you die so who gives a shit right? (Note: This may sound a bit harsh when reading but it's not supposed to be that way, so please understand it wasn't mean to be so unpleasant. Text is black and white with no shades of grey.) How is it Mutilation? The coroner is going to drain all of the blood from your body and replace is with embalming fluid. You don't have to give consent for them to do that, It's just done. When you put your trash out on the curb it's presumed that you don't want it therefore anyone can walk up and take anything they want from it. You're never going to use your organs, you didn't specify what should happen to them in your will, why shouldn't we presume they're trash(or someone else's treasure)? __________________ “It is better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick” - Dave Barry