Bill to donate organs by default...
 

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).
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!

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)

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :)

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)?

I'm pretty sure the cause of death would be listed as whatever it was that actually killed the person, not "They died because Galt didn't donate his liver."

Anyway, why do I have a duty to save someone else's life? Not that I think people shouldn't help others or donate organs, but they have no obligation to do so.

Yeah, God forbid people have spiritual beliefs that preclude desecration of the body after death.

Those evil bastards!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Actually, I'm amazed at all the organ donors here. There shouldn't be a shortage if so many people are donors.

Galt, If you see someone standing in the road with a speeding truck coming toward them, Let's say you have time to make a conscience decision to let the truck him. The cause of death will still be listed as whatever, you are still partly responsible.

Highthief, There's plenty of donors, there's a shortage of dead ones. (That's not true, but It sounds good.) All the donors on TFP haven't really been harvested yet though :)

I would like to see a study about any relationship between who is likely to be a donor, and who is likely to die in accidents. It seems to me that anyone that cares enough to give thier organs isn't the kind of person to drive 150mph on a motorcycle and vice versa although I could be wrong..

One of the reasons they spend the money is to raise awareness because most people don't know or care about signing their organ donor card. Stange but true, but ask anyone randomly where 1) they get an organ donor card from and 2) if they have ever signed one.

If the decision to sign one is irrelevant and unimportant to the potential donor, then they should lose by default. But I'm biased, my cousin received a kidney from someone who died in an accident and now is not only alive and healthy but has a new extended family from the people who lost their son. Happy and sad story all at once.

the problem, at least here in the United States, is that your family can override your wishes--and it happens a lot. Doesn't matter if it says you are an organ donor--if you don't have it drawn up in an advanced directive, your family can still say no.

This is why everyone should let their families know their wishes, and keep an advanced directive on hand in case they do find themselves in this situation. I know my folks know that if I'm braindead the plug should be pulled and my organs should be taken, and I have a document that says something to the same effect.

Hahahahaha if they did this shit in the US I'd quit being an organ donor just to spite their asses.

Just curious what the seatbelt laws and helmet laws are in Canada... Are they required? People who don't wear helmets especially are basically future organ donors (least that's what they call 'em in New hampshire where there are still no helmet laws... and Idon't think there are seatbelt laws) .. so why not do away with those laws altogether and make a bigger pool of organ donation candidates... :D

In Ontario you are required by law to wear seatbelts and helmets.

Crotch rockets are also called donorcycles by emergency room workers.

My brother is a transplant recipient. Opt-in or opt-out, doesn't matter to me. I will still donate.

wow this thread is amazing... I think not being an organ donor is the most selfish thing a person can do.

I think the exact same thing about people who choose to not be blood donors on a regular basis... But I also don't think that the government can compel you to be an organ donor, nor can they compel you to be a blood donor. It's something a person should do out of choice...

I'm an organ donor and always will be, my family knows this, as do all my friends in one way or another, I have a card I carry in my wallet that says I'm an organ donor.

I can't give blood though, every time I have tried... (like 6 times) not a single nurse can get that needle into my vein for whatever reason.

(giving blood for medical tests is always a day that I HATE, its a smaller needle so they can usually get it, within OHhhhh say the 10th fuckin try :(

I don't really see the sneakiness that some say comes with this. You get your health card, they explain the new organ donation policy and you choose the one that is right for you.

I'd also have no problem with this becoming the policy for driver's permits in the states. There would still be a choice, you just have to opt out, not in. If it is really so important for your spiritual needs to keep everything intact for the next world learn the facts about your Canadian health card or your state's driver's permits.

And I'll wager that there are more good intentioned people who plan to get around to filling out their organ donation options on their driver's licences that never get around to it than do.

FWIW, if I leave anything of use have at it when I'm dead. Otherwise it's worm food.

this sounds like a pretty good plan to me, actually.
not a lot of people seem to care to donate, but making it a default, and those whom dont want to, can opt not to...

that could save so many lives.

but people donate blood all the time and blood expires quick.

how soon does human guts expire?

Wyckd, there is the fundamental point though that a lot of people disagree (well me at least on):

This leads to abuse (when the default option is to agree rather than not agree) and there are probably as many people opposed to organ dontation but can't be bothered as people who are for it but can't be bothered. Yes it could save lives however if I had a bill that said that all of your estate is given to a random person who needs it on your death unless you opt out (and we can lose your card if we want to) would you still opt in?

I think you're missing the entire point here...


This would save unimaginable lives... if there were actually small to nil waiting lists for organ donations. It would be a breakthrough in medicine that would up survival rate of certain illnesses by at least 100%. You know.... like the kidney failure that could be just waiting inside YOU.

There is 1 reason I can see to opt out of this, and it would be religious beliefs, silly to me but perhaps not to some people. (I see no reason the massive majority of the US population: Christians, would have a problem with this... its clearly stated you do not take your body with you but rather you will be given a new form upon entering the afterlife)

Furthermore, if those superstitious...errr :P .... religious folk are that entrenched in their belief, it won't be a big deal to just opt out of the program. Because honestly, if it's that important they will go to whatever length to preserve their religious morals. (as if signing 'no' when you get your liscence renewed is "going to whatever lengths anyhow")

I'm not missing the point... I am an organ donor... I have also donated gallons of blood, and have donated bone marrow more than once... I have little patience for people who dont.

However, I also don't think that the government has the right to have any say in what happens to my organs when I die. I have a will to dispense with my assets, I have a living will to decide what happens when I am in that situation. It's my choice, that choice is not made for me by someone else. By having an opt out, that choice becomes less mine.

This would dramatically increase the number of non-elective surgeries and general billable procedures. It's a vast, untapped market. Hospital wings for organ transplants will sprout like weeds. Great idea. Prepare the direct mail campaign.

/me spent too much time around surgeons and GPs during their lunch hours recently.

edit: I didn't want to say it, but I wonder where this began. It's easy to get recipient families on-board but I'm guessing that wasn't the source.

Want more organs from voluteers? Pay. Give donors a cut. (heh)

Angelicvampire, Ever heard of Eminent Domain? It's the government's right to take your property for the good of the community and it can't be stopped. I guarantee you that saving a life is 100 times more important than making a wider highway or building new City Hall.

We are evolving as a society and we are constantly re-writing our ethics. Sometimes we need to make decisions that will help a great number of people while being only a mild inconvenience to some. Is it mutilation to cut off someone's head, put it on a stake to scare away enemies? Hell yes. It is mutilation to respectfully, and carefully take something from a dead person to save lives? Hell No.

There may be as many people, I don't know, but they don't care enough to sign a paper, so why should anyone care enough about them to not save millions of lives?
There's a saying around here, if you didn't vote, don't bitch about the President. The same can be said about anyone that doesn't opt out, don't bitch when your organs get harvested.

Menoman, if you think about it religion plays such a small role in organ donation. Christian Scientists, Shinto, and Jehovah's Witnesses are the only ones that don't promote organ donation. There's quite a few of them but they aren't exactly a majority.

edit:

Cyrnel, The National Organ Transplant act made it illegal to sell human organs because..

Eminent domain is a political eggshell. It would be suicidal for any official to suggest a connection between ED and this bill.

Can't we evolve? That's an old law, and it fails to incent individuals to take better care of their "inventory." (only partly tongue-in-cheek.)

No the most selfish thing a person can do is to scatter your enemy and drive him before you. To see his cities reduced to ashes. To see those who love him shrouded and in tears. And to gather to your bosom his wives and daughters.

Lets get a bit of perspective here.

? wtf? double post..

What? Huh?

I agree. There's nothing that emboldens the human spirit and says "I love my fellow man" than saying "Fuck you, these organs are mine!"

The only reason you'd say NO to being harvested is either (a) religious belief or (b) selfishness. I'd love to see someone come up with another reason here. If you claim your reason is "because it's mine," that simply a well-worded way of saying that you're so greedy, miserly, or selfish, however you want to put it, that you can't donate something to the common good that in NO WAY helps you.

This is one place where I'm comfortable saying that everyone should be harvested, regardless of their beliefs, religious or otherwise. I much prefer saving the lives of the living than "celebrating" the dead. They're dead, they don't contribute, they smell, they rot, and they did I mention they don't contribute? They don't talk, they don't walk, they don't care, they don't love, they don't make money, spend money, or improve the state of humanity. THEY ARE USELESSS. The only GOOD thing they still have going for them is that their organs CAN help humanity. So if that means mutilating the shit out of their corpses, I'm all for it. It saves lives.

You know what? I can't believe the religious and spiritual intolerance of some of the "educated" people on this thread. Yourself and menoman and others.

For some people, as hard as it is for you "learned" folks to understand, their own immortal soul is more important than someone else's transitory earthly existence.

You may not believe that, but saying other people's beliefs are "stupid" or "ignorant" or not worth paying attention to, as several people here have done, is the height of arrogance and ignorance.

It's not about incentive Cyrnel, as soon as you start putting a price on the organs they have a value and that value starts to inflate. There'll be an organ donation union demanding more money, soon the hospital bill is chump change compared to the price of the organs and everything the NODA meant to prevent is happening. (Only partly tongue-in-cheek)


Why should it matter if you choose on your own or if you choose to be in agreement with a law? That sounds kinda vain although I'm pretty sure it wasn't meant to be coming from you, mal.

I've been called a lot worse than vain lately.. :)

I'm not in agreement with the law... I don't think that the government has the right to decide what to do with you after you've passed on... What happens to my remains after I'm dead - is my choice...

Whoa there.. while I might feel strongly, you'll benefit from re-reading my post and noting that I never once attacked any religions. As a matter of fact, I did a search for "stupid" and "ignorant" in this page, and the only place it found it was yours -- so I'm not sure where you got that idea.

Futhermore, my statement that "The only reason you'd say NO to being harvested is either (a) religious belief or (b) selfishness." corroborates this. These are seperated for a reason -- they can be mutually exclusive. You can not want your body descrated per your religion, or you can not want it harvested because you're a selfish bastard. OR you can be both. I made no assumptions on anyone's behalf regarding which they were. One could argue that putting your religion above human life was selfish.. but that's an aside.

I'd like to see you tell me where I even nodded to the effect of religious intolerance. Just because I don't think its a viable reason for implicitly killing people does not mean I'm not educated in their religions or tolerant of them.

I simply said that I would much prefer saving lives than honoring dead people, religiously or not:

OH, and P.S. - Jesus sacrificed HIS body to humanity. Wouldn't donating your organs post-mortem further show a devotion to following the Lord's path? (assuming you're Christian)

How, precisely, would you indicate that "choice" to those of us who were still living? In the absense of a written will or a "sticker," the decision should always default to the family, and then the government. What other choice is there? By putting an opt-out sticker, this simply solidifies an already implicit rule so that people can be "donated" without so much litigation.

And why should I want to save people whose only thought is for themselves and how this can extend their lives? Could it be that perhaps some people see it as selfish that people wish to extend their own lives beyond that which is natural (not saying its unnatural merely that there is this point of view as well). There are reasons people may not wish to donate, if we follow the logical path of this your estate should by default go to the state as well and many people would be opposed to that!

The choice does currently go sticker, family government, just that the automatic assumption is no because this will offend fewer people by default and means that there is no benefit to failing to include them in the system or losing a card.

Looking at this in America (rather than Canada where the healthcare is free so its less of an issue) how would you react, poorer people will still be poor and unlikely to be able to afford the cost of a transplant, the rich however will be thus creating the dicotomy that is feared by the paying for donors. Heck why make organ donation illegal in life, you only need 1 kidney and 1 lung, etc... you could easily create an economy of organs from those willing to sell them in life when they can make a choice on their own to go into the health care system.

If you had a say as to how your organs were donated I am sure a lot more people would want to donate, there are some truly selfless people however there are a lot more who would likely be willing if they had some say as to how their organs were used rather than a generic "donation" (I donate money to charities which dispose of money in ways I agree with, I do not donate to other... something similar may help people be willing to donate).

Actually, it's been decided in US courts that you have ZERO right to any of your body parts once they are surgically removed, even if you're still alive. The placenta in particular is a real money-maker.

Link

It's obvious that the proposed law would have huge financial ramifications. The last time I heard, which was well over ten years ago, a recipient of a kidney (or his insurance) paid $25,000 per kidney. You should recall that they usually remove kidneys in pairs, so SOMEBODY makes $50,000 from a kidney donor, but it isn't the donor or his family.

Kind of makes the oil and insurance companies look charitable, IMO.

I'd have to imagine that the number of folks whose religion prohibits organ donation is so relatively minute that it probably does not pose a realistic factor in this discussion.

And this thread as convinced me that folks should have a say in what happens to their bodies after death. Think of it as a house. You're certainly not going to use it after your death, but of course everyone feels they have the right to dictate what happens to it after they die. Just because some homeless people may benefit from using your house when you're gone and not utilizing it anymore doesn't mean that's what should necessarily happen.

However, the Gov't (American gov't, anyways) has an "opt-out" program too. It's called a will. If you don't leave a legal document, the gov't can do all kinds of annoying, interfering, and value-reducing actions with your house.

An addendum question: Maybe the government should consider offering a tax credit for blood and organ donations? Now *that's* what I'm talking about! :D

How, precisely, will you guarantee that a person who has a vehement objection to being (what they consider) desecrated will be treated in accordance with his or her wishes?

If you want to believe that a hospital wouldn't "lose" the opt-out of a person with a rare blood type, that's up to you. Like I said in the previous post, there's a huge financial incentive for them to do exactly that.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a much better system that the hospital has to prove they have permission to cut up my friends and family, rather than for me to prove that they don't have permission.

Cybermike, I'll keep it straight. I agree free organs (and transplants) for the masses would be great, but I don't believe a forced taking is necessary or wise (for reasons stated well by others). Nor will it solve the overall availability problem. (counting ORs, ICU beds, surgeons, recovery rooms, floor beds, support resources, ad nauseum) Organ availability is no panacea. We would saturate our healthcare facilities with a modest increase attainable by public awareness compaigns. Opt-out or forced harvesting is the road to a refrigeration crisis.

Anyway, I'm just offering my slanted (twisted) perspective honed from a year dealing with the healthcare beast from bottom to top. Wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

It's presumed that the family is going to want any property. It's also presumed that no one in the family is going to want the organs. They can't actually keep them so the only option is burying them with the person or donating them. It's still going to be their choice in case of missing proof.

AngelicVampire, going by your own logic, if organ donation was just presumed, there would not be a lack of organs and there would be no need "lose" a sticker, not to mention there's laws in place already to prevent people from this. Again, The process would STILL be Proof, Family, Government. So anyone who has a vehement objection still has the family to fall back on.

Extending life beyond what's natural? We are beyond nature, nature is letting dogs feed off your corpse when you die. We evolved and made our dead sacred, now our knowledge has evolved once again and we learned we can use the dead extend the life of the living but we still have a hard time letting go of old traditions and beliefs.

How is someone on the organ donor transplant selfish? The majority are probably the least selfish people on earth. They have spent the time in the hospital and they're humbled. They don't wish anyone to be as sick as they are and they know for them to live someone else has to die.

Cyrnel, your agruement is there's not enough beds in hospitals? With millions more donations and receiving It'll pay for expansion. it may be overwhelming in the beginning but they will adjust. Just because something is hard doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried.

FORCED Harvesting? Strong words there. It's hardly forced.

Angelic, You can choose to donate whichever organs you want, They monitor the organ waiting list, if someone on the lung transplant list smokes, they're disqualified, same with drinkers and other preventable reasons. They aren't just transplanting kidneys and dropping the patient off at the bar.

I can't stay here and argue all day I need sleep. I'll let everyone analyze everything I said, find the weak parts and point them out to me. Then you can remind me about everything I forgot about replying to and I'll catch up in the morning. :P

This thread seriously boggles my mind....

I never would have thought the decision to save another persons life... the ability to save a person the heartbreak and sorrow of losing a child, or a mother who would die too young, would be so casually thrown aside.

Im still trying to figure out why its such a big deal to "opt out", when those of us that have agreed to be donors in the past, me included by saying yes when I renew my drivers license...havent really complained about the extra step WE have had to take to agree to do it, am I missing something here? Is it that big of a deal to say no, I dont wish to do this....

ask that to all the people who won't/don't give blood for whatever reason...

I have no problem with organ donation... I have my card... I want it to be my choice - I don't want that choice made for me- why is that so mind boggling?

How can you guarentee that harvested organs would actually be put to good use... I'm sure there would be a lot of waste as well...

Melodrama ftw!

Saying the state should not get ones organs by default does not equal people wanting babies to die.

Its more of a question on the nature of the state and society.

You obviously have never met anyone on an organ waiting list. You've never seen what it does to thier brother/sisters having to realize their sibling is going to die. You've never seen what it does to their parents, first being torn apart by seeing their son/daughter being slowly ravaged by the disease... then slowly realizing that their little one is going to die because people are too lazy/heartless to care enough to give organs they will never use again to someone who desperately needs it.

You're dead.. you're right what do you care then. My question is how can you live with yourself NOW? You remind me of those people who watched the old lady get stabbed to death, not helping, and watched him as he calmly walked away.

Exactly, its not organ donation thats the issue, its the state being sneaky about it thats the issue.

Educate the public, make it more accepted, but this is trying to sneak it in under the radar.

I'm still using my organs right now, thank you very much.. and when I die... someone is more than welcome to them... but it's my choice... I made the conscious decision to give my organs...

SInce you're so concerned about saving lives, I'm guessing that you'll be donating blood or platelets, or signing up for the bone marrow registry tomorrow? :D That's being proactive in saving lives...

I don't think its the majority of the cases that would come up that make people object to this policy. It's going to be the person without identification, whose family didn't know was dead until after the body has been harvested. Or some bastard who clones Scarlett Johannson, and then in a horribly retarded plot twist decides that instead of staring at her all day, he's going to declare her not really alive by virtue of clone, and then harvest her organs.

In Virginia, your estate becomes property of the commonwealth to be disposed of as directed. If you leave no direction (i.e. you have no will) they can do pretty much whatever they want with it. I don't know of any cases where they <i>haven't</i> left the disposition of the estate up to surviving family if an obvious choice is available, but don't assume it's the "default" just because tha's the way the law has set it up in your neck of the woods.

The problem I have with this is some admin-type in a county hospital looking at a report that the 20-something-car-accident-victim-who-was-previously-in-ideal-health has excellent chances of recovery if they try Procedure X.. but rather than saving this person's life, sells the patient for scrap so they can upgrade the NMRI machine. So sad.

As long as my family was paid for the organ harvests I have no problem with it. I think that my dead body is the property of my living family, and if they could make money by selling me to the circus so they could put me in a big vat of formaldehyde for everyone to make fun of and laugh at I give them permission.

Why would you choose to let someone die if all you had to do was give them something you dont need?

I'm tempted to ramble about the "theys" and physical resources, that transplants aren't independent of the rest of healthcare's shortages which aren't scaling well anyway... but I like your optimism. Maybe with more people thinking about how things should be rather than how it is we might make a difference.

In the meantime, everyone should spend a vacation volunteering in healthcare. Get to know it outside the media. Prepare for family and yourself. (Make use of your organs before they're removed? ;) )

Some here suggested moving further, to mandatory donor status. Hence the "opt-out or forced" summary. Didn't mean to rile.

I still beleive it's an extreme measure and overkill, and I'm against taking decisions away, but after more thought I'm willing to let people stir up the healthcare mud. Visibility and big kicks may force change where small ones cannot.

bone marrow registry? Mal? Info!!

Opt-out makes it much easier to disregard the wishes of the person involved.

Although I have not worked in an ER, I feel safe in saying that a lot of people arrive unaccompanied, without their driver's license.

Under opt-out, those people are automatic donors, no matter what their wishes are.

Some have expressed amazement that anyone wouldn't be a donor. I'm amazed at the number of people who would dictate what is to be done with the bodies of others.

I find it amazing the number of people who would complain it's against their rights as americans to become donors by default when they are neglecting their duty as a human being by not donating.

It's give and take people. People take, take, take and when it's time to give you step back and say Fuck that, I object!

Donating is a choice... I am under no legal obligation to donate blood, to write a check to the charity of my choice, to give a back of unused items to Goodwill, it's my choice... I willingly choose that on a regular basis.

When the state says that I have to do something... that takes away my choice.

I'll say it one more time for the cheap seats... I am an organ donor, I've given gallons of blood, I've donated bone marrow... twice (after knowing how much it hurt the first time)... I would give a kidney to pretty much anyone... It's my choice though... I don't want that choice taken.

^^ Yep, ditto. (except the bone marrow thing, wow!)

My thoughts on process, Candian or American:

1. Continue to have donation be Opt IN, spend the money on advertising etc to promote awareness, put it with the license renewal stuff, etc.
2. Also advertise that if you are not Opting In AND you could (i.e. no health issues), you do not get to receive organs either in case of emergency.

:D

Yes, about once a month. No, I dont donate bone marrow, when I was in the Navy it was not allowed, and I'm applying to the Fire Dept. and the Army atm, and neither want my hips or leg bones in any way shape or form weakened... even if its temporary.

Your philosophy is very widespread, at least in Islamic countries, where certain people stipulate what everyone else's "duty" is.

That should be embossed on every tax form in this country. And over the entrance to Congress.

I personally think they should pass this. Who cares if your organs are being taken, they're going to hopefully save someone's life. Plus your dead ne ways.