After 'Medicus' case proved that the stolen organs travelled all over the world and ended up in rich people's bodies, transplanted in eminent clinics, I would absolutely not trust that this system is safe. At the most ridiculous parody, remember Monty Python's 'The Meaning Of Life' when they came to convince him to donate his liver (there and then)? And even if you opt out, this system will see all babies tissue typed anyway (I am assuming this) so even if their parents opt out on their behalf, they may pop up on someone's radar anyway. Here's the video, morbid and hilarious as it was http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aclS1pGHp8o
My mother has a stipulation in her will or something that she will not be an organ donor, and also that she will not receive any organs apart from blood. Donation should be left personal, I don't see how a government can demand this of people. I can think of many reasons why people may not have realised they have to sign something to protect their organs from being removed after death. And I can think of many reasons why people would not wish to donate organs--not the least because they may not want their cells to be used for medical research they disagree with.
Nudge harkens back to a progressive spirit of paternalism that can have a nasty streak. Granted, slippery slope, but we did try out prohibition at one point, which is where good intentions go if kept unchecked. Paternalism flies in the face of liberty, and with organ demand so high, the best solution would be to let people sell their own, and make some money off it while they live, instead of hunting the bodies of the passed for their organs. Doing nearly anything on a global scale trumps liberty.
I have just read an article about Coleen S. Burns, who was admitted to St. Joseph's Hospital in Central New York. Her life support was turned off and it wasn't until she opened her eyes as they started to harvest her organs that they called off the procedure. Okay, they ignored certain signs and didn't do enough checks, but I think the case illustrates the creepy and unethical lengths that some hospitals go to to get their hands on organs. I feel no oblication to donate, and I don't expect anyone to donate to me or mine. When our time is up, that'll be that. Oh, and there is a big difference with giving blood--you can make more of it, but you can't replace an organ. Even losing a kidney can be fatal if the other one packs up.
Does any country have such a mechanism in place where your organs can be 'bought' or 'reserved' in advance? Wouldn't that be wide open to corruption? The potential buyer/owner/ organ agent literally dying to get their hands on your bits and bobs?
I hadn't actually heard about this until now. People would still make it a personal choice and it may increase the amount of donations - a lot of people are so uncomfortable with it they don't like to think about it. I'd be happy for this to come to Australia.
This thread is fascinating. To me, it's always been a no-brainer. When I die I don't need my body anymore so why not donate my organs to help further someone elses' life or at the very least help promote further medical research? I see it as a great and terrible waste when people don't donate though of course I don't believe they should have to should they choose not to. I think the opt out system is great. I know a lot of people here don't donate because they just don't think to register or bother with the 'hassle' of it. I'm curious though, apart from religious reasoning, what are some other protests people have? Above it was mentioned about not agreeing with certain medical research. Are there other reasons?
As I mentioned in an earlier post, by default, the government owns your organs after you die. I have a problem with that.
That's merely an extension of governments' belief that they own everything we do while we're alive. Either way, it's pretty much pointless when we'll be growing organs in vats in a couple of decades.
If people could sell them, then they'd have control over their destiny. Corruption might occur, but it would allow individual control.
Not wanting to be unplugged early by utilitarian types, which may just be paranoia, but still might happen. Another concern would be the desire to be whole in death, which some people may feel, even non-religiously.
I think I'd rest easier in my grave if I thought all of my organs, and even limbs were being used by someone, or lots of people who could benefit from them. Some people here are afraid the opt-out system is ripe for rigging, turning off life support to give a rich receiver first option on a heart for instance. We hear about this from places like Mexico all the time and the UK might not be that dissimilar. The case that Madhoca mentions can be viewed here, apparently it happened 4 years ago and is only hitting the news today http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/488142/20130709/woman-wakes-up-dead-organ-harvesting-surgery.htm - Was there an ulterior motive for harvesting her organs in a hurry? Even though one of the nurses spotted the patients nostrils flaring, the doctors ignored her and continued with the operation to remove any good parts. The girl in question was comatose from a drugs OD and was so depressed after the ordeal she soon committed suicide. Like jazz said, if we give govts permission to shred our bodies in the event of death, who's to say those of us with healthy bodies won't die prematurely to the benefit of some rich/more important dude. Just as well my kidneys are well pickled by this stage!
Having to opt out is losing the battle in my head now, I know these people weren't harvesting organs but such medical malpractice (for want of a sterner word) is alive and kicking among those that undertook the hippocratic oath. 150 women sterilised without the slightest knowledge while in prison http://rt.com/usa/california-prison-sterilized-inmates-782/
