Wales have just approved a bill where the whole population must opt-out of having their organs donated after death. I think this should be world wide - would anybody like to argue why it shouldn't? I'm curious to know why it isn't global...
Why the whole population? That's a rather strange bill for something so personal. EDIT ~ I got my learn on. I get it now. The bill would make a "yes" the default answer to donating organs unless the individual takes the action to opt out and say no.
you got your learn on Organs will be taken from every corpse unless the person has specifically indicated he/she wants them buried with him/her.
So, yes, now that my learn has been been donned, so to speak, on to the question. My answer is, I'm torn. I personally have no issue with it. When I'm done with it, my body is just meat. If some good can come to someone in the form of improved health of some kind from my passing, may they wear my organs in good health and joy! But there are people in the world for whom this is a no-no by reason of faith. Shinto spiritualism and the brand of Christianity that Jehovah's Witnesses practice ban the giving or taking of organs. Don't know how much representation either have in Wales, but, I doubt the answer is zero.
that's cool if they think they should die 'whole' - they just go online and opt out, no questions asked, no funny looks. I think this is great that most people will automatically donate bits 'n' bobs. I would make it worldwide!
But (and this is me playing devil's advocate) you know that the argument against this is going to be to the tune of, "Yeah, but people forget to do shit like that, so it shouldn't be their responsibility to opt out of somthing they don't want, init!" EDIT ~ Don't ask me why, but all of that was said in the voice of Vince from Mongrels.
I'm so lazy I keep meaning to get a donor card, I haven't even signed the waiver on the back of my driver's licence, come to think of it, where is my licence? I would hate to think I had a few good bits left over that someone could have done with but I didn't sign a stupid card that was in my wallet...
I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and I'd just like to point out that organ donation isn't condemned by our religion. We view it as a personal choice dependent on the conscience of the person, whether or not they wish to give or receive an organ transplant. We don't accept blood transfusions, but organ donation and transplant is a different matter that's up to the person.
My apologies. I was under the impression that the proscription was all inclusive. A bit of research indicates you are correct. It also seems that it's a bit of a point of contention within the faith itself, some being slightly more liberal than others as regards the matter.
This is very curious as I don't know an awful lot about JWs except for judges in Ireland have forced some JW children into having life saving blood transfusions against their parent's will. Why is this and what is the difference with full organs?
No problem And yeah, it is something that not all Witnesses agree on, but as a whole, our stance on it is that it's a personal decision. I personally see no problem with organ donation, and I think it's a good idea what they did in wales. It isn't demanding that everyone be a donor, but it's making donation the default, and that could save lives.
Okay, so our beliefs blood are based on a few different biblical citations. Leviticus 17:11,12 (and all through the mosaic law code for that matter) where it states, "For the soul of the flesh is in the blood... That is why I have said to the sons of Israel: "No soul of you must eat blood..." in the Hebrew Scriptures. Acts 15:29, where it says, "Keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood..." in the New Testament. (Both from the NWT) That is the basis of out abstaining from blood in food and blood transfusions. Blood was several times throughout the bible singled out as something sacred and not to be consumed. Organs on the other hand, were never singled out in that way. It's still a touchy subject but not expounded on as plainly in the bible as blood is. So, because of that, we believe that it's a personal decision. Hope that makes sense!
So you believe your blood carries your soul and to change your blood is to lose your soul - have I got that? So you're vegetarian too? And you use the same bible, just in a different translation? Forgive me If I sound like a dope
I think this idea, just like any other, will get perverted and abused by people. What's stopping someone from killing somebody for their organs? Presumably, if this went through, they'd have made some provision for tissue typing as people routinely go into hospital or have their blood taken ( perhaps even at birth). Knowing the pathetic track record that NHS has with keeping confidential information, any rich guy can hire any top hacker to hack into the system, find him a potential match and his problem is just an illegal organ transplant clinic away (or a private clinic, as there's been quite a few such cases uncovered in recent years). So that has me worried. The spirit of the law is fine, just like dynamite was. And nuclear fission...
[MENTION=8010]Phoenix[/MENTION]: I find that fascinating, because if you are receiving someone's organ, their blood is also still in it. Organs and blood are not separate.
Pheonix is right. I was a JW too Even for blood transfusions, the restriction is only on whole blood transfusions or transfusions of its main components. All the smaller stuff that is also carried around in blood, such as certain proteins, can be transfused, if the person wishes to. I think this new default is a good idea and will make it easier to save people. I only wonder about forensic exhumations; they won't be as doable as they are now, huh?
apparently that's quite popular in Mexico... I think you have to add it all up, if it saves 100 people a year but a few die (or get killed for their organs) then the greater good wins and hope people don't go to that extreme.
Vegetarian? HECK NO! lol Meat is fine as long as it has been bled as much as possible within reason. Normal health codes in most countries see to that. And as for being afraid of losing our souls... not so much. It's more that consistently through the bible, blood is regarded as sacred and it's commanded that it not be eaten or taken into the body. And yes, we use the same bible, just a different translation called the New World Translation. It's very similar to most other translations, except that its in more contemporary english and is based off the original manuscripts instead of being based off an older translation in latin. Those verses I cited should be in any translation though, and say basically the same thing. [MENTION=35110]jazzabel[/MENTION]l, I am not sure, but I believe that when an organ is transplanted most of the blood is out of it... like I said, might be totally wrong about that. That's one of the reasons though that it's a personal decision, factors like that can affect a persons decision.
sounds like you can pick and choose a few bits (like most religions) no soul of you must eat blood - but carry on with a nice rare fillet of steak. Don't transplant blood - but carry on with organs full of blood. The RC bible is based off the original manuscripts, only the King James Bible was translated hundreds of years after. And in catholic church we drink the blood of Christ offered to us by the priest. The differences in religions are so subtle yet so diverse.
I suppose lol But, as for meat... God told Noah he could eat it after the flood... and that never changed, so I have no problem with meat. But even then when He told Noah that he could eat meat, he said that they shouldn't eat blood. I suppose the same idea would apply to organs... *shrugs*
God made them all eat plants; Noah, his family and the animals so they wouldn't be tempted to eat each other... I'd imagine
Before then, all that had been available for mankind to eat (at least, with God's blessing) was vegetation. But after the flood he gave Noah and his family His blessing to eat meat. You can find that in Gen 9:3. "Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you." I don't see anything wrong with being a vegetarian, but I don't have a problem with an omnivorous diet either (Especially when a nice rare sirloin is in question) Once again *Shrugs*
[MENTION=52161]erebh[/MENTION]: my grandad was a criminal attorney and he always said it's better that a 100 guilty men go free than for one innocent to rot in jail. I think this is the same kind of thing. Just like Guantanamo, even though it may help prevent terrorist attacks, it hasn't turned out to be lesser than two evils. I think this is yet another in a long line of utterly misguided actions of our government and health ministers. Instead of raising awareness of this issue and improving the standard of living so that people want to be altruistic and do this of their own accord, they are doing another nanny-state blanket action which will turn sour due to corruption inherent in the system. [MENTION=8010]Phoenix[/MENTION]: Thank you for explaining, I do find it interesting how religious people can pick and choose on certain issues and not others. I don't follow any church (even though I'm a spiritual person and believe in a higher power) so to me the inner workings of it are a bit of a mystery. Having said that, I read the Bible and good portions of many religious and mystical texts, and the practicality of food advice always surprises me. I see it as health promotion for the ancients. Blood, meat and milk being kept separately, not eating pork, all that is very sound advice designed to prevent large-scale food poisonings in the hot climate where these religions originated. The blood comment could also have been to discourage early attempts at blood transfusion. Ancient Egyptians and Persians (the religions from which the later ones apparently emerged) were extremely advanced in medicine and surgery. It could be that they encountered catastrophic transfusion reactions due to blood type mismatch, but since they didn't realise the cause of the problem and had no way of tissue typing, this could have been a piece of medical wisdom that was eventually compiled in a format of a religious doctrine. If there was indeed a huge natural disaster (and archaeology suggests there was) which greatly set back the civilisation post-flood, the knowledge could have become fragmented and poorly understood, hence the metaphorical way of passing it on. Also, blood gets spoiled most quickly after the kill, and it can contain dangerous pathogens so if eaten uncooked it could kill you. Who knows! I'd love to be able to travel through time and find out how all these things came to be
Not sure I agree with your grandad, those 100 guilty people may be let free to strike again on another 100 innocents and as for Gitmo.... that's another thread and I think you and I both agree on that one. I'm not sure if you've just hit my NWO switch but I watched Psywars (thank you) and also Ethos the movie. Even Henry Ford in 1930 said "they" were planning a one-world government. You think if the whole world had an opt-out for organ donations, they are relying on people too lazy to opt out and that would give the higher-ups cart blanche on all our bodies as the day gets nearer?
