FabSwingers.com mobile

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Organ donation

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Should you have to opt in to organ donation?

Or do you welcome the change and think people should opt out?

Personally, once I’m dead, I don’t need anything, give it all away as far as I’m concerned

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

People should have to opt out. Yes, your body and organs are yours, but neglecting someone else's health when you're already dead, is not something we should accept.

Be nice, save lives, even when you're dead.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I like the idea of the opt out.

If there's anything useful left of me when I shuffle off, they can have it. I wouldn't want to hold up any potential donations because I'd forgot to opt in.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

We already have an opt out organ donation scheme in Wales. Again we are ahead of the game .

It's working well . I keep my diner card handy just in case . Though I'm sure not many would want my liver lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ink Panther.Woman
over a year ago

Preston

It’s about time we were opt out. I’m already registered and have been most of my adult life. A few years ago I discovered I will need a transplant in years to come and I know that not enough organs are available. This has made feel even more strongly about donating my organs

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"We already have an opt out organ donation scheme in Wales. Again we are ahead of the game .

It's working well . I keep my diner card handy just in case . Though I'm sure not many would want my liver lol "

Alright there Hannibal

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *airymagicWoman
over a year ago

goblin city

Absolutely, opt out policy.

To many life saving organs wasted. Just imagine the crazy effect it would have on us as a country.

It would be amazing

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

As soon as I found out about organ donation I registered. I think it's a great idea.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *dam1971Man
over a year ago

Bedford

Some bloke will be very lucky if he ends up with my organ

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It makes sense to have an opt out system.

It must be hard to be the family but I know many people who have gained comfort from their loved one helping others live.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uxom redCouple
over a year ago

Shrewsbury

I'm on the organ donor list and the bone marrow donor list.

Once I'm dead what bits of me that are not used will go to medical research or a body farm.

Opt out makes perfect sense to me.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ieman300Man
over a year ago

Best Greggs in Cheshire East

Sorry to go against the trend but opt in all the way. For me personally I couldn't care less. Use what you can of mine. I am registered as a Donor. But I don't agree that it should be the default. A family should have the right to say no if their loved one has not consented. Opt out takes away their say. That just doesn't sit right with me.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *onbons_xxMan
over a year ago

Bolton

I'd think it was better if there was a more informed choice. Make it easier, there's a big need, but education wise there just needs to be more touch points. Opting out of things isn't the best precedent.

Though folk can take my body for whatever they like.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uxom redCouple
over a year ago

Shrewsbury


"Sorry to go against the trend but opt in all the way. For me personally I couldn't care less. Use what you can of mine. I am registered as a Donor. But I don't agree that it should be the default. A family should have the right to say no if their loved one has not consented. Opt out takes away their say. That just doesn't sit right with me."

I thought you still needed the families permission.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod

over a year ago

East Sussex

I'm not sure about it. I've been a registered organ donor for years with the exception of my eyes but I think I'd rather have an opt in system.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think if you opt out, you should automatically be exempt from receiving any organ if you need it

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I think if you opt out, you should automatically be exempt from receiving any organ if you need it"

I wouldn’t, organ donation is a good thing and saves lives, no matter how much of a twat someone can be.

Peadophiles on the hand, I feel differently about them

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abs..Woman
over a year ago

..

Opt out is a good thing. The thought of people living their lives suffering when perfectly good organs are disposed of, cannot be right.

Currently there are a lot of people that don’t get around to making their wishes known, then there are those people that can’t or won’t make that decision when a loved one dies. This would prevent all of that.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

I’ve told my friends and family that the more I’m buried with, the more disappointed I will be.

If I save one person I’ll be happy

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think it’s a good thing as I think the majority of people would give their organs but it’s not something you ever really think about

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rincess peachWoman
over a year ago

shits creek


"I’ve told my friends and family that the more I’m buried with, the more disappointed I will be.

If I save one person I’ll be happy "

Proud of you

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It should be opt out. If people feel that strongly about not donating they will quickly make the effort to officially opt out rather than procrastinate like so many do over opting in.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm kinda undecided. Yes I want to think idealistically and to give more people the chance of a longer life but I'm also aware of the fact the world is already overpopulated, our aging population is putting more and mote strain on our economy and on a basic level our space on the earth.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I’ve told my friends and family that the more I’m buried with, the more disappointed I will be.

If I save one person I’ll be happy

Proud of you "

Thanks mother

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ensualtouch15Man
over a year ago

ashby de la zouch


"It should be opt out. If people feel that strongly about not donating they will quickly make the effort to officially opt out rather than procrastinate like so many do over opting in."

I think that is a reasonable perspective

IF a person feels strongly enough they don't want to then the options are available to opt out , most are meh

Me I have organ donation then my body is signed up for medical research and finally I've willed my skeleton to be preserved and used for teaching

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"It should be opt out. If people feel that strongly about not donating they will quickly make the effort to officially opt out rather than procrastinate like so many do over opting in."

I wouldn’t mind opting in for a night with you

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *orkie321bWoman
over a year ago

Nottingham

Whether an opt in or an opt out system is used your next of kin have the final say on if your organs should be donated. If they say no it doesn't matter what your wishes are.

I would rather see a system where the donors wishes are followed and their family can't override them.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Selective opt out. Once you're dead you don't need them, so why not let someone else have a chance at life.

If it was possible I'd sign up for a living donor register. Your liver grows back after a living donation, think how many more people could be saved if it was possible to donate while still alive.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ieman300Man
over a year ago

Best Greggs in Cheshire East


"Sorry to go against the trend but opt in all the way. For me personally I couldn't care less. Use what you can of mine. I am registered as a Donor. But I don't agree that it should be the default. A family should have the right to say no if their loved one has not consented. Opt out takes away their say. That just doesn't sit right with me.

I thought you still needed the families permission. "

Oooo. If that is the case I am on board.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ieman300Man
over a year ago

Best Greggs in Cheshire East


"I think if you opt out, you should automatically be exempt from receiving any organ if you need it"

Wow. That's extreme thinking.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *urlesque!Woman
over a year ago

Gloucester


"Sorry to go against the trend but opt in all the way. For me personally I couldn't care less. Use what you can of mine. I am registered as a Donor. But I don't agree that it should be the default. A family should have the right to say no if their loved one has not consented. Opt out takes away their say. That just doesn't sit right with me."

I fully agree it should remain opt in. My body belongs to me and me alone and no government has the right to assume otherwise. If it became law I would instantly opt out - my body - my decision.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ieman300Man
over a year ago

Best Greggs in Cheshire East


"Whether an opt in or an opt out system is used your next of kin have the final say on if your organs should be donated. If they say no it doesn't matter what your wishes are.

I would rather see a system where the donors wishes are followed and their family can't override them."

O that I agree with. I would hope my family would not go against my wishes. It's bloody complicated this donor business.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think if you opt out, you should automatically be exempt from receiving any organ if you need it

Wow. That's extreme thinking."

I just think, if you're not willing to give the opportunity to save a life, why should you take from another who does?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *candiumWoman
over a year ago

oban

I want my body to go to Gunther von hagens for his plastication, failing that a body farm. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of organ donation but I'm not sure mine would be usable anyway.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ieman300Man
over a year ago

Best Greggs in Cheshire East


"I think if you opt out, you should automatically be exempt from receiving any organ if you need it

Wow. That's extreme thinking.I just think, if you're not willing to give the opportunity to save a life, why should you take from another who does? "

O i totally get your point. Just ouch, no I can't agree with that.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *urlesque!Woman
over a year ago

Gloucester


"I just think, if you're not willing to give the opportunity to save a life, why should you take from another who does? "

I agree with you and I would not expect to. Only fair.

To qualify my stance on donation, I would donate if I knew it would to my immediate family, chance of a better match anyway.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here


"I think if you opt out, you should automatically be exempt from receiving any organ if you need it

Wow. That's extreme thinking.I just think, if you're not willing to give the opportunity to save a life, why should you take from another who does? "

I suspect you haven’t thought through the whole concept you are suggesting

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ensualtouch15Man
over a year ago

ashby de la zouch


"Sorry to go against the trend but opt in all the way. For me personally I couldn't care less. Use what you can of mine. I am registered as a Donor. But I don't agree that it should be the default. A family should have the right to say no if their loved one has not consented. Opt out takes away their say. That just doesn't sit right with me.

I fully agree it should remain opt in. My body belongs to me and me alone and no government has the right to assume otherwise. If it became law I would instantly opt out - my body - my decision."

Thus as above you are happy to opt out of receiving anothers organs ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I've been on the do Not register for years so.opt in/opt out is a bit academic in my case.

But I do feel the state has no right to dictate to people what happens to their body after they are gone.

While the donor shortage problem is serious this should be a matter of conscience and not one where people are forced to opt out to protect their rights or beliefs.

That in essence is just another form of the naming and shaming culture that seems to be taking over do much of life.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It should be opt out. If people feel that strongly about not donating they will quickly make the effort to officially opt out rather than procrastinate like so many do over opting in.

I wouldn’t mind opting in for a night with you

"

Smoooooth! I see what you did there

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think if you opt out, you should automatically be exempt from receiving any organ if you need it

Wow. That's extreme thinking.I just think, if you're not willing to give the opportunity to save a life, why should you take from another who does?

I suspect you haven’t thought through the whole concept you are suggesting "

What I'm suggesting is, if you choose to opt out of donating an organ in the event of your death, you should not expect to be given the opportunity to recieve one from another person while you are still alive? Seems fair?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *innie The MinxWoman
over a year ago

Under the Duvet

I've got an old Bontempi knocking round if anyone wants it

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *amissCouple
over a year ago

chelmsford

I would be happy to donate my organs, after death, but when my Mum died last year, I couldn't bear the thought of her organs being taken from her

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By * and M lookingCouple
over a year ago

Worcester

Hubby has always been take anything once I’m gone.

Has made that clear from the day that I met him 33 years back.

Even put it on his driving licence forms.

Mrs

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here


"I think if you opt out, you should automatically be exempt from receiving any organ if you need it

Wow. That's extreme thinking.I just think, if you're not willing to give the opportunity to save a life, why should you take from another who does?

I suspect you haven’t thought through the whole concept you are suggesting

What I'm suggesting is, if you choose to opt out of donating an organ in the event of your death, you should not expect to be given the opportunity to recieve one from another person while you are still alive? Seems fair? "

Consider this:

Person 1 - is opted in, and happy to donate . Needs a new liver due to disease caused by persistent drinking. Gets the liver.

Person 2 - is opted out. Needs a new liver due to an unforeseen accident .

Doesn’t get a liver

Seems fair?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *amissCouple
over a year ago

chelmsford


"I think if you opt out, you should automatically be exempt from receiving any organ if you need it

Wow. That's extreme thinking.I just think, if you're not willing to give the opportunity to save a life, why should you take from another who does?

I suspect you haven’t thought through the whole concept you are suggesting

What I'm suggesting is, if you choose to opt out of donating an organ in the event of your death, you should not expect to be given the opportunity to recieve one from another person while you are still alive? Seems fair?

Consider this:

Person 1 - is opted in, and happy to donate . Needs a new liver due to disease caused by persistent drinking. Gets the liver.

Person 2 - is opted out. Needs a new liver due to an unforeseen accident .

Doesn’t get a liver

Seems fair?"

No, doesn't seem fair to me.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think if you opt out, you should automatically be exempt from receiving any organ if you need it

Wow. That's extreme thinking.I just think, if you're not willing to give the opportunity to save a life, why should you take from another who does?

I suspect you haven’t thought through the whole concept you are suggesting

What I'm suggesting is, if you choose to opt out of donating an organ in the event of your death, you should not expect to be given the opportunity to recieve one from another person while you are still alive? Seems fair?

Consider this:

Person 1 - is opted in, and happy to donate . Needs a new liver due to disease caused by persistent drinking. Gets the liver.

Person 2 - is opted out. Needs a new liver due to an unforeseen accident .

Doesn’t get a liver

Seems fair?

No, doesn't seem fair to me."

To qualify for a new liver if you've damaged through misuse, you need to be clean for 6 months..

So yes I think if you've misused but turned your life around, you should be entitled to a new liver, regardless..

In the other hand, if you are saying you wouldn't potentially help save a life in the event of your death by opting out of organ donation, then someone more deserving should get a new organ before you in the event of you needing one post accident

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here


"I think if you opt out, you should automatically be exempt from receiving any organ if you need it

Wow. That's extreme thinking.I just think, if you're not willing to give the opportunity to save a life, why should you take from another who does?

I suspect you haven’t thought through the whole concept you are suggesting

What I'm suggesting is, if you choose to opt out of donating an organ in the event of your death, you should not expect to be given the opportunity to recieve one from another person while you are still alive? Seems fair?

Consider this:

Person 1 - is opted in, and happy to donate . Needs a new liver due to disease caused by persistent drinking. Gets the liver.

Person 2 - is opted out. Needs a new liver due to an unforeseen accident .

Doesn’t get a liver

Seems fair?

No, doesn't seem fair to me.

To qualify for a new liver if you've damaged through misuse, you need to be clean for 6 months..

So yes I think if you've misused but turned your life around, you should be entitled to a new liver, regardless..

In the other hand, if you are saying you wouldn't potentially help save a life in the event of your death by opting out of organ donation, then someone more deserving should get a new organ before you in the event of you needing one post accident

"

And who plays god ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think if you opt out, you should automatically be exempt from receiving any organ if you need it

Wow. That's extreme thinking.I just think, if you're not willing to give the opportunity to save a life, why should you take from another who does?

I suspect you haven’t thought through the whole concept you are suggesting

What I'm suggesting is, if you choose to opt out of donating an organ in the event of your death, you should not expect to be given the opportunity to recieve one from another person while you are still alive? Seems fair?

Consider this:

Person 1 - is opted in, and happy to donate . Needs a new liver due to disease caused by persistent drinking. Gets the liver.

Person 2 - is opted out. Needs a new liver due to an unforeseen accident .

Doesn’t get a liver

Seems fair?

No, doesn't seem fair to me.

To qualify for a new liver if you've damaged through misuse, you need to be clean for 6 months..

So yes I think if you've misused but turned your life around, you should be entitled to a new liver, regardless..

In the other hand, if you are saying you wouldn't potentially help save a life in the event of your death by opting out of organ donation, then someone more deserving should get a new organ before you in the event of you needing one post accident

And who plays god ?"

Who says an ex user deserves a new liver less than someone opting out of organ donation?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 14/12/17 23:39:40]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Just a thought, but for all those who are opt out, you would agree then, that another person/organisation etc can do anything they want to you unless you specifically tell them they can’t do it?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just a thought, but for all those who are opt out, you would agree then, that another person/organisation etc can do anything they want to you unless you specifically tell them they can’t do it?"

I personally wouldn't care if I was dead.. but I think others may feel differently

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"We already have an opt out organ donation scheme in Wales. Again we are ahead of the game .

It's working well . I keep my diner card handy just in case . Though I'm sure not many would want my liver lol "

Same here.. have always been on the register but happy for them to take my internal bits and pieces before they whack me in the ground/oven...

Its no biggie having to opt out... if you feel strongly

I cant understand why people in England are suddenly losing their shit over this. My facebook is full of it. Its 5p carrierbag gate all over again

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just a thought, but for all those who are opt out, you would agree then, that another person/organisation etc can do anything they want to you unless you specifically tell them they can’t do it?

I personally wouldn't care if I was dead.. but I think others may feel differently "

I’m talking about if you’re alive too?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here


"I think if you opt out, you should automatically be exempt from receiving any organ if you need it

Wow. That's extreme thinking.I just think, if you're not willing to give the opportunity to save a life, why should you take from another who does?

I suspect you haven’t thought through the whole concept you are suggesting

What I'm suggesting is, if you choose to opt out of donating an organ in the event of your death, you should not expect to be given the opportunity to recieve one from another person while you are still alive? Seems fair?

Consider this:

Person 1 - is opted in, and happy to donate . Needs a new liver due to disease caused by persistent drinking. Gets the liver.

Person 2 - is opted out. Needs a new liver due to an unforeseen accident .

Doesn’t get a liver

Seems fair?

No, doesn't seem fair to me.

To qualify for a new liver if you've damaged through misuse, you need to be clean for 6 months..

So yes I think if you've misused but turned your life around, you should be entitled to a new liver, regardless..

In the other hand, if you are saying you wouldn't potentially help save a life in the event of your death by opting out of organ donation, then someone more deserving should get a new organ before you in the event of you needing one post accident

And who plays god ?

Who says an ex user deserves a new liver less than someone opting out of organ donation?"

Exactly! And reverse your own statement - who says somebody who does not wish to donate their organs is any less deserving than someone who has put themsleves in the position of needing organ donation .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think it should be an opt out system , I am opted in and have made it clear to my family. I have even spoken to my daughter about it and she has opted in except for her eyes.

The problem with the current system seems to be that people mean to opt in but never get round to it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


".

That in essence is just another form of the naming and shaming culture that seems to be taking over do much of life."

Its confidential so hows it naming and shaming?

Relatively few people will ever be in a position to donate, since you have to be brain dead and on life support... so if someones opted out... they just pull the plug and wheel you off to the mortuary. You wont know anything about it

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *igertigerCouple (MM)
over a year ago

cc hotel


"People should have to opt out. Yes, your body and organs are yours, but neglecting someone else's health when you're already dead, is not something we should accept.

Be nice, save lives, even when you're dead."

agreed.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *igertigerCouple (MM)
over a year ago

cc hotel


"Sorry to go against the trend but opt in all the way. For me personally I couldn't care less. Use what you can of mine. I am registered as a Donor. But I don't agree that it should be the default. A family should have the right to say no if their loved one has not consented. Opt out takes away their say. That just doesn't sit right with me.

"

We shouldn't leave the onus on others to have to make the decision....opt out with a proper awareness campaign over the years should ensure that we all aware of the implications of sitting on our hands and doing nothing. Can't really think of any valid reasons for opting out....we never know anyone may need a transplant at any stage in life. Don't knock it you may need it is my motto.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here


"We already have an opt out organ donation scheme in Wales. Again we are ahead of the game .

It's working well . I keep my diner card handy just in case . Though I'm sure not many would want my liver lol

Same here.. have always been on the register but happy for them to take my internal bits and pieces before they whack me in the ground/oven...

Its no biggie having to opt out... if you feel strongly

I cant understand why people in England are suddenly losing their shit over this. My facebook is full of it. Its 5p carrierbag gate all over again "

I think it is a biggie. my feeling is there is quite an important point of principal. Having to inform the state/system that they do not have a default right to my body is very different to donating/giving through your own choice.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Some bloke will be very lucky if he ends up with my organ "

Is it in tune?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inkerbell67Woman
over a year ago

Clacton on sea essex

my friends little boy had a liver transplant 2 years ok and is doing well ..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So do we start a culture that unless we specifically state otherwise, we accept that anything can be done to us?

I can think of plenty of things I don’t want to happen to me. Dead or alive.

I’d prefer not to have to specifically “opt out” of any of them....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *un4meanduMan
over a year ago

STOTFOLD

Lost a close family member a few months ago due to an accident he was left with non survivable brain injury , we followed his wishes to donate now 2 people and their families have a better life.

I think its great to have to opt out but I'm in anyway

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *cot611Man
over a year ago

carterton

no brainer this one. if something good can come from something bad it has to be done. a friend of mine who lost a close family member found the fact the organs had given other people a future helped with the grief. donation should be mandatory.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Definitely opt out.

I just think of all the people who would donate haven't necessarily registered.

Let's become like Wales - it needs to happen and soon

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Definitely opt out.

I just think of all the people who would donate haven't necessarily registered.

Let's become like Wales - it needs to happen and soon "

Also known as the state taking over the right to appropriate any persons body parts with a further erosion of personal freedoms.

Turn your argument on its head. How many of those who do not wish to donate their organs will omit to opt out!

The state does not own us body and soul.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think if you opt out, you should automatically be exempt from receiving any organ if you need it

Wow. That's extreme thinking.I just think, if you're not willing to give the opportunity to save a life, why should you take from another who does?

I suspect you haven’t thought through the whole concept you are suggesting

What I'm suggesting is, if you choose to opt out of donating an organ in the event of your death, you should not expect to be given the opportunity to recieve one from another person while you are still alive? Seems fair?

Consider this:

Person 1 - is opted in, and happy to donate . Needs a new liver due to disease caused by persistent drinking. Gets the liver.

Person 2 - is opted out. Needs a new liver due to an unforeseen accident .

Doesn’t get a liver

Seems fair?

No, doesn't seem fair to me.

To qualify for a new liver if you've damaged through misuse, you need to be clean for 6 months..

So yes I think if you've misused but turned your life around, you should be entitled to a new liver, regardless..

In the other hand, if you are saying you wouldn't potentially help save a life in the event of your death by opting out of organ donation, then someone more deserving should get a new organ before you in the event of you needing one post accident

And who plays god ?

Who says an ex user deserves a new liver less than someone opting out of organ donation?

Exactly! And reverse your own statement - who says somebody who does not wish to donate their organs is any less deserving than someone who has put themsleves in the position of needing organ donation .

"

it just seems hypocritical.. not willing to give, but happy to receive?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Definitely opt out.

I just think of all the people who would donate haven't necessarily registered.

Let's become like Wales - it needs to happen and soon

Also known as the state taking over the right to appropriate any persons body parts with a further erosion of personal freedoms.

Turn your argument on its head. How many of those who do not wish to donate their organs will omit to opt out!

The state does not own us body and soul.

"

Further to the poster above, i imagine you'd happily receive a donated organ should you ever need one, hopefully never.

I think the family still have the rights to stop it happening

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod

over a year ago

East Sussex


"Definitely opt out.

I just think of all the people who would donate haven't necessarily registered.

Let's become like Wales - it needs to happen and soon

Also known as the state taking over the right to appropriate any persons body parts with a further erosion of personal freedoms.

Turn your argument on its head. How many of those who do not wish to donate their organs will omit to opt out!

The state does not own us body and soul.

"

I'm inclined to agree. Education and an efficient opt in system would be my choice I think.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *un4meanduMan
over a year ago

STOTFOLD

Even opted in I think it will still be as it is now if someone has a card and still have to ask next of kin if they agree to it .

But as my last post I'm in and would encourage anyone to sign up .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ancastermanMan
over a year ago

carnforth

I work with a woman born blind. She had retinal transplants and is now a palliative care nurse? It's not just saving lives but improving them too

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here


"I think if you opt out, you should automatically be exempt from receiving any organ if you need it

Wow. That's extreme thinking.I just think, if you're not willing to give the opportunity to save a life, why should you take from another who does?

I suspect you haven’t thought through the whole concept you are suggesting

What I'm suggesting is, if you choose to opt out of donating an organ in the event of your death, you should not expect to be given the opportunity to recieve one from another person while you are still alive? Seems fair?

Consider this:

Person 1 - is opted in, and happy to donate . Needs a new liver due to disease caused by persistent drinking. Gets the liver.

Person 2 - is opted out. Needs a new liver due to an unforeseen accident .

Doesn’t get a liver

Seems fair?

No, doesn't seem fair to me.

To qualify for a new liver if you've damaged through misuse, you need to be clean for 6 months..

So yes I think if you've misused but turned your life around, you should be entitled to a new liver, regardless..

In the other hand, if you are saying you wouldn't potentially help save a life in the event of your death by opting out of organ donation, then someone more deserving should get a new organ before you in the event of you needing one post accident

And who plays god ?

Who says an ex user deserves a new liver less than someone opting out of organ donation?

Exactly! And reverse your own statement - who says somebody who does not wish to donate their organs is any less deserving than someone who has put themsleves in the position of needing organ donation .

it just seems hypocritical.. not willing to give, but happy to receive? "

Not hypocritical.

Medical ethics - never an easy subject, and would never come down to a single tick box question “are you an organ

Donor or not “

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod

over a year ago

East Sussex

How would everyone feel if they introduced an opt out system for bone marrow donation, kidney donation, blood?

The same principle or not?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ancastermanMan
over a year ago

carnforth

Currently in England 34% of the adult population is signed up as a donor. In two years only 6% have opted out in Wales.

I'm part of an organisation that did a year of active campaigning recently. In a year we boosted local sign ups to 45% and that figure is still rising. You cannot say that people who want to donate are already signed up.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Definitely opt out.

I just think of all the people who would donate haven't necessarily registered.

Let's become like Wales - it needs to happen and soon

Also known as the state taking over the right to appropriate any persons body parts with a further erosion of personal freedoms.

Turn your argument on its head. How many of those who do not wish to donate their organs will omit to opt out!

The state does not own us body and soul.

Further to the poster above, i imagine you'd happily receive a donated organ should you ever need one, hopefully never.

I think the family still have the rights to stop it happening "

Currently the family do have that right. And yes if required I would happily accept a donation as I made clear further up the thread when I stated I had been on the donor register since I was 18.

But that is personal choice and my own social responsibility. No state body should have the right to remove those personal freedoms by appropriating to itself the power to determine what happens to our bodies at or around the time of death.

It must be the week for resurrections....

Welcome back... again!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Definitely opt out.

I just think of all the people who would donate haven't necessarily registered.

Let's become like Wales - it needs to happen and soon

Also known as the state taking over the right to appropriate any persons body parts with a further erosion of personal freedoms.

Turn your argument on its head. How many of those who do not wish to donate their organs will omit to opt out!

The state does not own us body and soul.

Further to the poster above, i imagine you'd happily receive a donated organ should you ever need one, hopefully never.

I think the family still have the rights to stop it happening

Currently the family do have that right. And yes if required I would happily accept a donation as I made clear further up the thread when I stated I had been on the donor register since I was 18.

But that is personal choice and my own social responsibility. No state body should have the right to remove those personal freedoms by appropriating to itself the power to determine what happens to our bodies at or around the time of death.

It must be the week for resurrections....

Welcome back... again! "

Thanks

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ancastermanMan
over a year ago

carnforth


"Definitely opt out.

I just think of all the people who would donate haven't necessarily registered.

Let's become like Wales - it needs to happen and soon

Also known as the state taking over the right to appropriate any persons body parts with a further erosion of personal freedoms.

Turn your argument on its head. How many of those who do not wish to donate their organs will omit to opt out!

The state does not own us body and soul.

Further to the poster above, i imagine you'd happily receive a donated organ should you ever need one, hopefully never.

I think the family still have the rights to stop it happening "

Unfortunately this is one of the big frustrations. You can carry a card, tell everyone you know that you want to donate, but a relative for their own reasons can ignore your wishes. It happens regularly, over three times a week in the UK.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ancastermanMan
over a year ago

carnforth


"Definitely opt out.

I just think of all the people who would donate haven't necessarily registered.

Let's become like Wales - it needs to happen and soon

Also known as the state taking over the right to appropriate any persons body parts with a further erosion of personal freedoms.

Turn your argument on its head. How many of those who do not wish to donate their organs will omit to opt out!

The state does not own us body and soul.

Further to the poster above, i imagine you'd happily receive a donated organ should you ever need one, hopefully never.

I think the family still have the rights to stop it happening

Currently the family do have that right. And yes if required I would happily accept a donation as I made clear further up the thread when I stated I had been on the donor register since I was 18.

But that is personal choice and my own social responsibility. No state body should have the right to remove those personal freedoms by appropriating to itself the power to determine what happens to our bodies at or around the time of death.

It must be the week for resurrections....

Welcome back... again! "

If you have the right to opt out then you lose no freedom. There is no state control of your body.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Definitely opt out.

I just think of all the people who would donate haven't necessarily registered.

Let's become like Wales - it needs to happen and soon

Also known as the state taking over the right to appropriate any persons body parts with a further erosion of personal freedoms.

Turn your argument on its head. How many of those who do not wish to donate their organs will omit to opt out!

The state does not own us body and soul.

Further to the poster above, i imagine you'd happily receive a donated organ should you ever need one, hopefully never.

I think the family still have the rights to stop it happening

Currently the family do have that right. And yes if required I would happily accept a donation as I made clear further up the thread when I stated I had been on the donor register since I was 18.

But that is personal choice and my own social responsibility. No state body should have the right to remove those personal freedoms by appropriating to itself the power to determine what happens to our bodies at or around the time of death.

It must be the week for resurrections....

Welcome back... again!

If you have the right to opt out then you lose no freedom. There is no state control of your body. "

State control would be assumed unless you “opted out” and that is entirely backwards

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ancastermanMan
over a year ago

carnforth


"Definitely opt out.

I just think of all the people who would donate haven't necessarily registered.

Let's become like Wales - it needs to happen and soon

Also known as the state taking over the right to appropriate any persons body parts with a further erosion of personal freedoms.

Turn your argument on its head. How many of those who do not wish to donate their organs will omit to opt out!

The state does not own us body and soul.

Further to the poster above, i imagine you'd happily receive a donated organ should you ever need one, hopefully never.

I think the family still have the rights to stop it happening

Currently the family do have that right. And yes if required I would happily accept a donation as I made clear further up the thread when I stated I had been on the donor register since I was 18.

But that is personal choice and my own social responsibility. No state body should have the right to remove those personal freedoms by appropriating to itself the power to determine what happens to our bodies at or around the time of death.

It must be the week for resurrections....

Welcome back... again!

If you have the right to opt out then you lose no freedom. There is no state control of your body.

State control would be assumed unless you “opted out” and that is entirely backwards"

Why? What is wrong with the State looking after its citizens? And how is it control if you can opt out? Currently even if you opt in that choice isn't yours in the end but your family's. How is that better?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I shouldn't have to opt out of having my organs harvested to be put in someone else..the same as I find having someone else's organs weird, I find the idea of cutting people up and swapping parts about alien and weird, I don't want anyone's old parts and I'll take my chances cheers.

Where is this opt out thing advertised? It's the first I've heard..quietly changing stuff so they can get hold of more organs it feels like.

Those who want to know they can so please..do, but those who don't want that now have to go out of their way to prevent that happening to themselves? Somehow seems the wrong way about

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Definitely opt out.

I just think of all the people who would donate haven't necessarily registered.

Let's become like Wales - it needs to happen and soon

Also known as the state taking over the right to appropriate any persons body parts with a further erosion of personal freedoms.

Turn your argument on its head. How many of those who do not wish to donate their organs will omit to opt out!

The state does not own us body and soul.

Further to the poster above, i imagine you'd happily receive a donated organ should you ever need one, hopefully never.

I think the family still have the rights to stop it happening

Currently the family do have that right. And yes if required I would happily accept a donation as I made clear further up the thread when I stated I had been on the donor register since I was 18.

But that is personal choice and my own social responsibility. No state body should have the right to remove those personal freedoms by appropriating to itself the power to determine what happens to our bodies at or around the time of death.

It must be the week for resurrections....

Welcome back... again!

If you have the right to opt out then you lose no freedom. There is no state control of your body.

State control would be assumed unless you “opted out” and that is entirely backwards

Why? What is wrong with the State looking after its citizens? And how is it control if you can opt out? Currently even if you opt in that choice isn't yours in the end but your family's. How is that better?"

There's nothing wrong with the state looking after its citizens, if they are given the choice to go under that control...not automatically be under it and need to opt out of it, that's back to front

Seems like one more tiny bit of erosion of personal freedom. Something doesn't sit right about it being this way around at all

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ancastermanMan
over a year ago

carnforth


"I shouldn't have to opt out of having my organs harvested to be put in someone else..the same as I find having someone else's organs weird, I find the idea of cutting people up and swapping parts about alien and weird, I don't want anyone's old parts and I'll take my chances cheers.

Where is this opt out thing advertised? It's the first I've heard..quietly changing stuff so they can get hold of more organs it feels like.

Those who want to know they can so please..do, but those who don't want that now have to go out of their way to prevent that happening to themselves? Somehow seems the wrong way about "

Where is it advertised? There was a long, widely publicised consultation in Wales followed by a Parliamentary process then many months of setting up the systems. It was publicised in many different ways over several years. In Wales primarily as that is where it applies but most English media and social media covered it. Over the past 3 years I've personally had face to face conversations about it with several hundred, maybe a thousand or more, different people in England.

Now this process is beginning with a consultation in England this information will be made available again. It is not a secret. It is very widely known.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I shouldn't have to opt out of having my organs harvested to be put in someone else..the same as I find having someone else's organs weird, I find the idea of cutting people up and swapping parts about alien and weird, I don't want anyone's old parts and I'll take my chances cheers.

Where is this opt out thing advertised? It's the first I've heard..quietly changing stuff so they can get hold of more organs it feels like.

Those who want to know they can so please..do, but those who don't want that now have to go out of their way to prevent that happening to themselves? Somehow seems the wrong way about

Where is it advertised? There was a long, widely publicised consultation in Wales followed by a Parliamentary process then many months of setting up the systems. It was publicised in many different ways over several years. In Wales primarily as that is where it applies but most English media and social media covered it. Over the past 3 years I've personally had face to face conversations about it with several hundred, maybe a thousand or more, different people in England.

Now this process is beginning with a consultation in England this information will be made available again. It is not a secret. It is very widely known. "

Once again we see "oh noes, tis bad.."

I've even seen people talking about it "only" being so the NHS can sell organs to order etc on groups on Facebook

As a Welsh person living with it, the over reaction just smacks of the paranoia and stereotypes off English people.. must be more to it, people doing things to be against me/ exploiting me.

I just don't get that attitude.. you're dead?! Why does it matter when you're dead, like meat in a butchers shop? We all live, We all die..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *amiePhuktMan
over a year ago

Bristol

I dont mind donating my organ to a lovely lady....... Oh wait sorry didnt read thread properly lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I shouldn't have to opt out of having my organs harvested to be put in someone else..the same as I find having someone else's organs weird, I find the idea of cutting people up and swapping parts about alien and weird, I don't want anyone's old parts and I'll take my chances cheers.

Where is this opt out thing advertised? It's the first I've heard..quietly changing stuff so they can get hold of more organs it feels like.

Those who want to know they can so please..do, but those who don't want that now have to go out of their way to prevent that happening to themselves? Somehow seems the wrong way about

Where is it advertised? There was a long, widely publicised consultation in Wales followed by a Parliamentary process then many months of setting up the systems. It was publicised in many different ways over several years. In Wales primarily as that is where it applies but most English media and social media covered it. Over the past 3 years I've personally had face to face conversations about it with several hundred, maybe a thousand or more, different people in England.

Now this process is beginning with a consultation in England this information will be made available again. It is not a secret. It is very widely known.

Once again we see "oh noes, tis bad.."

I've even seen people talking about it "only" being so the NHS can sell organs to order etc on groups on Facebook

As a Welsh person living with it, the over reaction just smacks of the paranoia and stereotypes off English people.. must be more to it, people doing things to be against me/ exploiting me.

I just don't get that attitude.. you're dead?! Why does it matter when you're dead, like meat in a butchers shop? We all live, We all die.. "

I'm not English

Bit of an odd one to pull the race card on, still, well done

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

That's fine. Just watching the dynamic on various issues over the years. Wales or Scotland bring in something with little comment or objection and England follow.. cud outrage and frothing at the mouth about rights being eroded and how outrageous etc... god forbid anyone does anythinv progressive or that works... that's not ok.

Little wonder these laws begin in devolved areas.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Had a donor card all my life if the last thing I do is help someone in need with an organ life was worth living to do a good deed on my death giving someone something they desperately need

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'd like to see it changed to opting out. After all, your dead body can't complain if I want to use it for anything after your gone anyway.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I shouldn't have to opt out of having my organs harvested to be put in someone else..the same as I find having someone else's organs weird, I find the idea of cutting people up and swapping parts about alien and weird, I don't want anyone's old parts and I'll take my chances cheers.

Where is this opt out thing advertised? It's the first I've heard..quietly changing stuff so they can get hold of more organs it feels like.

Those who want to know they can so please..do, but those who don't want that now have to go out of their way to prevent that happening to themselves? Somehow seems the wrong way about

Where is it advertised? There was a long, widely publicised consultation in Wales followed by a Parliamentary process then many months of setting up the systems. It was publicised in many different ways over several years. In Wales primarily as that is where it applies but most English media and social media covered it. Over the past 3 years I've personally had face to face conversations about it with several hundred, maybe a thousand or more, different people in England.

Now this process is beginning with a consultation in England this information will be made available again. It is not a secret. It is very widely known.

Once again we see "oh noes, tis bad.."

I've even seen people talking about it "only" being so the NHS can sell organs to order etc on groups on Facebook

As a Welsh person living with it, the over reaction just smacks of the paranoia and stereotypes off English people.. must be more to it, people doing things to be against me/ exploiting me.

I just don't get that attitude.. you're dead?! Why does it matter when you're dead, like meat in a butchers shop? We all live, We all die.. "

Yeah, being racist is always the best way to win an argument....

You don’t get it, therefore everyone else is wrong....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Definitely opt out.

I just think of all the people who would donate haven't necessarily registered.

Let's become like Wales - it needs to happen and soon

Also known as the state taking over the right to appropriate any persons body parts with a further erosion of personal freedoms.

Turn your argument on its head. How many of those who do not wish to donate their organs will omit to opt out!

The state does not own us body and soul.

Further to the poster above, i imagine you'd happily receive a donated organ should you ever need one, hopefully never.

I think the family still have the rights to stop it happening

Unfortunately this is one of the big frustrations. You can carry a card, tell everyone you know that you want to donate, but a relative for their own reasons can ignore your wishes. It happens regularly, over three times a week in the UK.

"

Now that really pisses me off!! Family should have no right to change something that person wanted.

I want it to be an opt out system. With no family intervention.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Definitely opt out.

I just think of all the people who would donate haven't necessarily registered.

Let's become like Wales - it needs to happen and soon

Also known as the state taking over the right to appropriate any persons body parts with a further erosion of personal freedoms.

Turn your argument on its head. How many of those who do not wish to donate their organs will omit to opt out!

The state does not own us body and soul.

Further to the poster above, i imagine you'd happily receive a donated organ should you ever need one, hopefully never.

I think the family still have the rights to stop it happening

Unfortunately this is one of the big frustrations. You can carry a card, tell everyone you know that you want to donate, but a relative for their own reasons can ignore your wishes. It happens regularly, over three times a week in the UK.

Now that really pisses me off!! Family should have no right to change something that person wanted.

I want it to be an opt out system. With no family intervention. "

family love to get one over on you, even when your gone. Bastards.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Definitely opt out.

I just think of all the people who would donate haven't necessarily registered.

Let's become like Wales - it needs to happen and soon

Also known as the state taking over the right to appropriate any persons body parts with a further erosion of personal freedoms.

Turn your argument on its head. How many of those who do not wish to donate their organs will omit to opt out!

The state does not own us body and soul.

Further to the poster above, i imagine you'd happily receive a donated organ should you ever need one, hopefully never.

I think the family still have the rights to stop it happening

Currently the family do have that right. And yes if required I would happily accept a donation as I made clear further up the thread when I stated I had been on the donor register since I was 18.

But that is personal choice and my own social responsibility. No state body should have the right to remove those personal freedoms by appropriating to itself the power to determine what happens to our bodies at or around the time of death.

It must be the week for resurrections....

Welcome back... again!

If you have the right to opt out then you lose no freedom. There is no state control of your body.

State control would be assumed unless you “opted out” and that is entirely backwards

Why? What is wrong with the State looking after its citizens? And how is it control if you can opt out? Currently even if you opt in that choice isn't yours in the end but your family's. How is that better?"

How is that “looking after its citizens?”

Or is that only looking after the citizens that agree with them and conform to what they tell them to do?

In addition it’s been stated that if people are that worried about organ donation then they will opt out.

Quite correct, given an entirely diverse group of people have the same level of understanding, that they act on fear of what may happen if they don’t.

Reminds me of how some other more eastern governments operate....

Let’s not get this debate wrong, as many of you are entirely missing the point. (Which this action and subject matter relies on you being duped and not seeing it for what it is).

This debate is not about wether organ donation is right or wrong, it’s not a debate about wether there are enough organs available to save people

It’s a debate on wether we should allow the government and other state bodies can make assumptions about what we want, and what they can do to us, without us specifically telling them not to do it.

“Opting out” seems like a stealth tactic to get a desirable outcome without infringing on people’s wishes. Clever and under hand.

What else should we end up having to “opt out” of should we create this culture.

Increased taxes

Number of children

Seizing of good and assets

Movement of people

Rights and privileges

I could go on.

Please don’t be so dim enough to be duped into thinking this is about organ donation, when the darker motivation of this proposed action is based on being pushed through by people who are.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ancastermanMan
over a year ago

carnforth


"I shouldn't have to opt out of having my organs harvested to be put in someone else..the same as I find having someone else's organs weird, I find the idea of cutting people up and swapping parts about alien and weird, I don't want anyone's old parts and I'll take my chances cheers.

Where is this opt out thing advertised? It's the first I've heard..quietly changing stuff so they can get hold of more organs it feels like.

Those who want to know they can so please..do, but those who don't want that now have to go out of their way to prevent that happening to themselves? Somehow seems the wrong way about

Where is it advertised? There was a long, widely publicised consultation in Wales followed by a Parliamentary process then many months of setting up the systems. It was publicised in many different ways over several years. In Wales primarily as that is where it applies but most English media and social media covered it. Over the past 3 years I've personally had face to face conversations about it with several hundred, maybe a thousand or more, different people in England.

Now this process is beginning with a consultation in England this information will be made available again. It is not a secret. It is very widely known.

Once again we see "oh noes, tis bad.."

I've even seen people talking about it "only" being so the NHS can sell organs to order etc on groups on Facebook

As a Welsh person living with it, the over reaction just smacks of the paranoia and stereotypes off English people.. must be more to it, people doing things to be against me/ exploiting me.

I just don't get that attitude.. you're dead?! Why does it matter when you're dead, like meat in a butchers shop? We all live, We all die..

I'm not English

Bit of an odd one to pull the race card on, still, well done "

It's not racist to say something smacks of a stereotype.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 15/12/17 07:50:46]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I shouldn't have to opt out of having my organs harvested to be put in someone else..the same as I find having someone else's organs weird, I find the idea of cutting people up and swapping parts about alien and weird, I don't want anyone's old parts and I'll take my chances cheers.

Where is this opt out thing advertised? It's the first I've heard..quietly changing stuff so they can get hold of more organs it feels like.

Those who want to know they can so please..do, but those who don't want that now have to go out of their way to prevent that happening to themselves? Somehow seems the wrong way about

Where is it advertised? There was a long, widely publicised consultation in Wales followed by a Parliamentary process then many months of setting up the systems. It was publicised in many different ways over several years. In Wales primarily as that is where it applies but most English media and social media covered it. Over the past 3 years I've personally had face to face conversations about it with several hundred, maybe a thousand or more, different people in England.

Now this process is beginning with a consultation in England this information will be made available again. It is not a secret. It is very widely known.

Once again we see "oh noes, tis bad.."

I've even seen people talking about it "only" being so the NHS can sell organs to order etc on groups on Facebook

As a Welsh person living with it, the over reaction just smacks of the paranoia and stereotypes off English people.. must be more to it, people doing things to be against me/ exploiting me.

I just don't get that attitude.. you're dead?! Why does it matter when you're dead, like meat in a butchers shop? We all live, We all die..

I'm not English

Bit of an odd one to pull the race card on, still, well done

It's not racist to say something smacks of a stereotype. "

That single statement is more than enough evidence to show that despite years of education, media coverage and social change, racism still isn’t understood.

And yet the debate is trying to convince us that a little publicity and consultation would educate everyone about opting out?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *urlesque!Woman
over a year ago

Gloucester


"

I think it is a biggie. my feeling is there is quite an important point of principal. Having to inform the state/system that they do not have a default right to my body is very different to donating/giving through your own choice. "

This!

It is a huge step to grant implicit permission to the state to do what they want with your body. It should be massive awareness campaign over the years with opt-in - that would respect personal freedom for me.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *urlesque!Woman
over a year ago

Gloucester


"Definitely opt out.

I just think of all the people who would donate haven't necessarily registered.

Let's become like Wales - it needs to happen and soon

Also known as the state taking over the right to appropriate any persons body parts with a further erosion of personal freedoms.

Turn your argument on its head. How many of those who do not wish to donate their organs will omit to opt out!

The state does not own us body and soul.

Further to the poster above, i imagine you'd happily receive a donated organ should you ever need one, hopefully never.

I think the family still have the rights to stop it happening

Currently the family do have that right. And yes if required I would happily accept a donation as I made clear further up the thread when I stated I had been on the donor register since I was 18.

But that is personal choice and my own social responsibility. No state body should have the right to remove those personal freedoms by appropriating to itself the power to determine what happens to our bodies at or around the time of death.

It must be the week for resurrections....

Welcome back... again!

If you have the right to opt out then you lose no freedom. There is no state control of your body.

State control would be assumed unless you “opted out” and that is entirely backwards

Why? What is wrong with the State looking after its citizens? And how is it control if you can opt out? Currently even if you opt in that choice isn't yours in the end but your family's. How is that better?

How is that “looking after its citizens?”

Or is that only looking after the citizens that agree with them and conform to what they tell them to do?

In addition it’s been stated that if people are that worried about organ donation then they will opt out.

Quite correct, given an entirely diverse group of people have the same level of understanding, that they act on fear of what may happen if they don’t.

Reminds me of how some other more eastern governments operate....

Let’s not get this debate wrong, as many of you are entirely missing the point. (Which this action and subject matter relies on you being duped and not seeing it for what it is).

This debate is not about wether organ donation is right or wrong, it’s not a debate about wether there are enough organs available to save people

It’s a debate on wether we should allow the government and other state bodies can make assumptions about what we want, and what they can do to us, without us specifically telling them not to do it.

“Opting out” seems like a stealth tactic to get a desirable outcome without infringing on people’s wishes. Clever and under hand.

What else should we end up having to “opt out” of should we create this culture.

Increased taxes

Number of children

Seizing of good and assets

Movement of people

Rights and privileges

I could go on.

Please don’t be so dim enough to be duped into thinking this is about organ donation, when the darker motivation of this proposed action is based on being pushed through by people who are. "

This - and you are quite right , the debate is not at all about the benefits of organ donation. It is about giving the state increasing powers - this time it is about harvesting organs....what next?

And I would also be concerned about the decision of taking organs being made in the favour of the recipient rather than possibly helping the injured person.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I want to come back as the undead..not too sure I want bits missing from me

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

but seriously...

in my opinion biotechnology will be moving fairly fast within a number of years...we wont need these harvests.

further down the line, cyberbiotechnology will supercede that.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

The problem with opting in is, you might get into some serious trouble before you get around to it. And even though you was going opt in, no one knows and your organs don’t get donated meaning some poor bugger has to do with out

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *educedWoman
over a year ago

Birmingham

Opt out all the way.

My son has had two kidney transplants (first rejected) and I will forever be grateful to the donor(s) and their families.

Without the transplant my son wasn't expected to live past 30 (long term renal failure and dialyis can cause some horrific side effects/ other illnesses).

He has been dialysis free for a year now and well, I just can't begin to describe the happiness and how my whole families life has changed.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I shouldn't have to opt out of having my organs harvested to be put in someone else..the same as I find having someone else's organs weird, I find the idea of cutting people up and swapping parts about alien and weird, I don't want anyone's old parts and I'll take my chances cheers.

Where is this opt out thing advertised? It's the first I've heard..quietly changing stuff so they can get hold of more organs it feels like.

Those who want to know they can so please..do, but those who don't want that now have to go out of their way to prevent that happening to themselves? Somehow seems the wrong way about

Where is it advertised? There was a long, widely publicised consultation in Wales followed by a Parliamentary process then many months of setting up the systems. It was publicised in many different ways over several years. In Wales primarily as that is where it applies but most English media and social media covered it. Over the past 3 years I've personally had face to face conversations about it with several hundred, maybe a thousand or more, different people in England.

Now this process is beginning with a consultation in England this information will be made available again. It is not a secret. It is very widely known.

Once again we see "oh noes, tis bad.."

I've even seen people talking about it "only" being so the NHS can sell organs to order etc on groups on Facebook

As a Welsh person living with it, the over reaction just smacks of the paranoia and stereotypes off English people.. must be more to it, people doing things to be against me/ exploiting me.

I just don't get that attitude.. you're dead?! Why does it matter when you're dead, like meat in a butchers shop? We all live, We all die..

I'm not English

Bit of an odd one to pull the race card on, still, well done

It's not racist to say something smacks of a stereotype.

That single statement is more than enough evidence to show that despite years of education, media coverage and social change, racism still isn’t understood.

And yet the debate is trying to convince us that a little publicity and consultation would educate everyone about opting out? "

Some folk ain't all that quick on the uptake

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The problem with opting in is, you might get into some serious trouble before you get around to it. And even though you was going opt in, no one knows and your organs don’t get donated meaning some poor bugger has to do with out "

Same with opt out...if you don't get to doing it your fucked..you don't own your own organs any more

Very very wrong

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You should have to voulenteer to give your own organs away. Not go asking if you can keep them.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *taceylacyCouple
over a year ago

NOTTINGHAM

Guys donate me their organ regularly. LOL

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm thinking of donating my body to medical science?

If not I'll happily donate anything usable to those that need it

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod

over a year ago

East Sussex


"You should have to voulenteer to give your own organs away. Not go asking if you can keep them.

"

In a nutshell these are my feelings.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *evil_u_knowMan
over a year ago

city

Opt in.

I want my body identification to be as easy as possible on my family. It will be either my dad or sis who identify me and it would badly affect them having to see me with my eyes gone and sewed up etc.

Id be happy to donate if i could say bye to them all first.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Opt out all the way.

My son has had two kidney transplants (first rejected) and I will forever be grateful to the donor(s) and their families.

Without the transplant my son wasn't expected to live past 30 (long term renal failure and dialyis can cause some horrific side effects/ other illnesses).

He has been dialysis free for a year now and well, I just can't begin to describe the happiness and how my whole families life has changed. "

Fantastic argument for the benefits of organ donation and why people should consider being a donor.

And thankfully this is a successful and happy story, and is despite the opt in system still in use.

Therefore I’d argue this appeals more so for opt in, rather than an argument for opt out?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *urlesque!Woman
over a year ago

Gloucester


"Opt out all the way.

My son has had two kidney transplants (first rejected) and I will forever be grateful to the donor(s) and their families.

Without the transplant my son wasn't expected to live past 30 (long term renal failure and dialyis can cause some horrific side effects/ other illnesses).

He has been dialysis free for a year now and well, I just can't begin to describe the happiness and how my whole families life has changed.

Fantastic argument for the benefits of organ donation and why people should consider being a donor.

And thankfully this is a successful and happy story, and is despite the opt in system still in use.

Therefore I’d argue this appeals more so for opt in, rather than an argument for opt out?"

Absolutely - forcing people into an opt out would in my view be morally wrong as it assumes you do not own your body. More people would opt out as a direct result of this assumption.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Opt out all the way.

My son has had two kidney transplants (first rejected) and I will forever be grateful to the donor(s) and their families.

Without the transplant my son wasn't expected to live past 30 (long term renal failure and dialyis can cause some horrific side effects/ other illnesses).

He has been dialysis free for a year now and well, I just can't begin to describe the happiness and how my whole families life has changed.

Fantastic argument for the benefits of organ donation and why people should consider being a donor.

And thankfully this is a successful and happy story, and is despite the opt in system still in use.

Therefore I’d argue this appeals more so for opt in, rather than an argument for opt out?Absolutely - forcing people into an opt out would in my view be morally wrong as it assumes you do not own your body. More people would opt out as a direct result of this assumption. "

I find it abhorrent I might actually have to go and seek permission from some faceless organisation to keep parts of my own body..that's the bit that I don't like and shouldn't have to do...no way should a human being have to go and ask someone else to be able to keep their own parts..it's some dystopian sci fi shit that is.

Imagine it was our money they wanted to harvest after our death..folk would go mental

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *urlesque!Woman
over a year ago

Gloucester


"

I find it abhorrent I might actually have to go and seek permission from some faceless organisation to keep parts of my own body..that's the bit that I don't like and shouldn't have to do...no way should a human being have to go and ask someone else to be able to keep their own parts..it's some dystopian sci fi shit that is.

Imagine it was our money they wanted to harvest after our death..folk would go mental "

Likewise and I do have a lot of empathy for those who need transplants - that does not alter the fact that it should be my decision.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ancastermanMan
over a year ago

carnforth


"Opt out all the way.

My son has had two kidney transplants (first rejected) and I will forever be grateful to the donor(s) and their families.

Without the transplant my son wasn't expected to live past 30 (long term renal failure and dialyis can cause some horrific side effects/ other illnesses).

He has been dialysis free for a year now and well, I just can't begin to describe the happiness and how my whole families life has changed.

Fantastic argument for the benefits of organ donation and why people should consider being a donor.

And thankfully this is a successful and happy story, and is despite the opt in system still in use.

Therefore I’d argue this appeals more so for opt in, rather than an argument for opt out?Absolutely - forcing people into an opt out would in my view be morally wrong as it assumes you do not own your body. More people would opt out as a direct result of this assumption.

I find it abhorrent I might actually have to go and seek permission from some faceless organisation to keep parts of my own body..that's the bit that I don't like and shouldn't have to do...no way should a human being have to go and ask someone else to be able to keep their own parts..it's some dystopian sci fi shit that is.

Imagine it was our money they wanted to harvest after our death..folk would go mental "

If I don't make a will my estate goes to the crown when i die. So there's your harvesting of money. Of course i can opt out by making a will.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lanemikeMan
over a year ago

Bolton


"Should you have to opt in to organ donation?

Or do you welcome the change and think people should opt out?

Personally, once I’m dead, I don’t need anything, give it all away as far as I’m concerned "

Yes, that is fine if you choose to do that, a worthy thing to do. It is not the State's business to take them without any authority.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ancastermanMan
over a year ago

carnforth


"Opt out all the way.

My son has had two kidney transplants (first rejected) and I will forever be grateful to the donor(s) and their families.

Without the transplant my son wasn't expected to live past 30 (long term renal failure and dialyis can cause some horrific side effects/ other illnesses).

He has been dialysis free for a year now and well, I just can't begin to describe the happiness and how my whole families life has changed.

Fantastic argument for the benefits of organ donation and why people should consider being a donor.

And thankfully this is a successful and happy story, and is despite the opt in system still in use.

Therefore I’d argue this appeals more so for opt in, rather than an argument for opt out?Absolutely - forcing people into an opt out would in my view be morally wrong as it assumes you do not own your body. More people would opt out as a direct result of this assumption. "

"More people would opt out as a direct result of this assumption" ? The evidence is overwhelmingly the opposite actually. Do some research before spouting off.

Also you have never had full control of your body after death. Try getting buried in the local park, on your favourite beach, down the allotment etc. You can't.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ay-89Woman
over a year ago

Norwich

I registered as soon as I could. Told my family that if I can help someone once I'm gone to let them have any organs, tissue whatever they need. I know it's a bit of a morbid discussion to have at 18 with family but they all know my wishes and have promised to respect that.

I have a friend in the forces that said they can take anything but his eyes, he doesn't want anyone seeing the horrific things he's seen in Afghan etc.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ancastermanMan
over a year ago

carnforth


"Should you have to opt in to organ donation?

Or do you welcome the change and think people should opt out?

Personally, once I’m dead, I don’t need anything, give it all away as far as I’m concerned

Yes, that is fine if you choose to do that, a worthy thing to do. It is not the State's business to take them without any authority."

A law passed by parliament after due process is not 'without any authority' though is it.

Do you object to the state building the road you travel on? Isn't that state interference?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *urlesque!Woman
over a year ago

Gloucester


"

"More people would opt out as a direct result of this assumption" ? The evidence is overwhelmingly the opposite actually. Do some research before spouting off.

Also you have never had full control of your body after death. Try getting buried in the local park, on your favourite beach, down the allotment etc. You can't. "

Unfortunately you are confusing 2 issues here and you are bringing in another completely different and unrelated topic, the choice of burial, which does not help in the discussion of opt-in/out.

The issue is about organ transplant and an opt in/out system. This would, in my view, be highly unethical namely to allow the state control over my body - and if the opt out system were to happen in England, I would be amongst the first to opt out. I would also be encouraging friends and family to not allow the state to assume consent.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *urlesque!Woman
over a year ago

Gloucester


"Should you have to opt in to organ donation?

Or do you welcome the change and think people should opt out?

Personally, once I’m dead, I don’t need anything, give it all away as far as I’m concerned

Yes, that is fine if you choose to do that, a worthy thing to do. It is not the State's business to take them without any authority."

You got it in one - this is about your body and your choice to do what you want with it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ancastermanMan
over a year ago

carnforth


"

"More people would opt out as a direct result of this assumption" ? The evidence is overwhelmingly the opposite actually. Do some research before spouting off.

Also you have never had full control of your body after death. Try getting buried in the local park, on your favourite beach, down the allotment etc. You can't.

Unfortunately you are confusing 2 issues here and you are bringing in another completely different and unrelated topic, the choice of burial, which does not help in the discussion of opt-in/out.

The issue is about organ transplant and an opt in/out system. This would, in my view, be highly unethical namely to allow the state control over my body - and if the opt out system were to happen in England, I would be amongst the first to opt out. I would also be encouraging friends and family to not allow the state to assume consent."

No I'm using a parallel example to highlight the ridiculous aspect of your argument.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *urlesque!Woman
over a year ago

Gloucester


"

"More people would opt out as a direct result of this assumption" ? The evidence is overwhelmingly the opposite actually. Do some research before spouting off.

Also you have never had full control of your body after death. Try getting buried in the local park, on your favourite beach, down the allotment etc. You can't.

Unfortunately you are confusing 2 issues here and you are bringing in another completely different and unrelated topic, the choice of burial, which does not help in the discussion of opt-in/out.

The issue is about organ transplant and an opt in/out system. This would, in my view, be highly unethical namely to allow the state control over my body - and if the opt out system were to happen in England, I would be amongst the first to opt out. I would also be encouraging friends and family to not allow the state to assume consent.

No I'm using a parallel example to highlight the ridiculous aspect of your argument. "

The one has absolutely nothing to do with the other and is not even a good analogy - otherwise you could enter a discussion on driverless cars into the debate- it would make just as much sense...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ancastermanMan
over a year ago

carnforth


"

"More people would opt out as a direct result of this assumption" ? The evidence is overwhelmingly the opposite actually. Do some research before spouting off.

Also you have never had full control of your body after death. Try getting buried in the local park, on your favourite beach, down the allotment etc. You can't.

Unfortunately you are confusing 2 issues here and you are bringing in another completely different and unrelated topic, the choice of burial, which does not help in the discussion of opt-in/out.

The issue is about organ transplant and an opt in/out system. This would, in my view, be highly unethical namely to allow the state control over my body - and if the opt out system were to happen in England, I would be amongst the first to opt out. I would also be encouraging friends and family to not allow the state to assume consent.

No I'm using a parallel example to highlight the ridiculous aspect of your argument. The one has absolutely nothing to do with the other and is not even a good analogy - otherwise you could enter a discussion on driverless cars into the debate- it would make just as much sense..."

It's an example of how you don't control your body after death already so some paranoia about state control doesn't make any sense.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *urlesque!Woman
over a year ago

Gloucester


"

"More people would opt out as a direct result of this assumption" ? The evidence is overwhelmingly the opposite actually. Do some research before spouting off.

Also you have never had full control of your body after death. Try getting buried in the local park, on your favourite beach, down the allotment etc. You can't.

Unfortunately you are confusing 2 issues here and you are bringing in another completely different and unrelated topic, the choice of burial, which does not help in the discussion of opt-in/out.

The issue is about organ transplant and an opt in/out system. This would, in my view, be highly unethical namely to allow the state control over my body - and if the opt out system were to happen in England, I would be amongst the first to opt out. I would also be encouraging friends and family to not allow the state to assume consent.

No I'm using a parallel example to highlight the ridiculous aspect of your argument. The one has absolutely nothing to do with the other and is not even a good analogy - otherwise you could enter a discussion on driverless cars into the debate- it would make just as much sense...

It's an example of how you don't control your body after death already so some paranoia about state control doesn't make any sense.

"

It is not at all paranoia, it could be for a number of very genuine reasons and we should not make assumptions about other people's motives : for example there is a belief (associated with some religions) that the body should not be cut to pieces after death, or it could be out of respect for the surviving members of the family who might be horrified by the idea or it could be the fundamental belief that my body with all its parts is mine. Let's face it there is precious little else we can claim to own these days. The expression that a mother "gives" life to the unborn says it all really? It is a gift and therefore should not be taken away unless that gift is given freely.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I agree with opting out.

~Mia

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *urlesque!Woman
over a year ago

Gloucester


"

"More people would opt out as a direct result of this assumption" ? The evidence is overwhelmingly the opposite actually. Do some research before spouting off.

Also you have never had full control of your body after death. Try getting buried in the local park, on your favourite beach, down the allotment etc. You can't.

Unfortunately you are confusing 2 issues here and you are bringing in another completely different and unrelated topic, the choice of burial, which does not help in the discussion of opt-in/out.

The issue is about organ transplant and an opt in/out system. This would, in my view, be highly unethical namely to allow the state control over my body - and if the opt out system were to happen in England, I would be amongst the first to opt out. I would also be encouraging friends and family to not allow the state to assume consent.

No I'm using a parallel example to highlight the ridiculous aspect of your argument. The one has absolutely nothing to do with the other and is not even a good analogy - otherwise you could enter a discussion on driverless cars into the debate- it would make just as much sense...

It's an example of how you don't control your body after death already so some paranoia about state control doesn't make any sense.

It is not at all paranoia, it could be for a number of very genuine reasons and we should not make assumptions about other people's motives : for example there is a belief (associated with some religions) that the body should not be cut to pieces after death, or it could be out of respect for the surviving members of the family who might be horrified by the idea or it could be the fundamental belief that my body with all its parts is mine. Let's face it there is precious little else we can claim to own these days. The expression that a mother "gives" life to the unborn says it all really? It is a gift and therefore should not be taken away unless that gift is given freely.

"

I meant to add.. for some it is about the "sanctity" of life and the human body.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ancastermanMan
over a year ago

carnforth


"

"More people would opt out as a direct result of this assumption" ? The evidence is overwhelmingly the opposite actually. Do some research before spouting off.

Also you have never had full control of your body after death. Try getting buried in the local park, on your favourite beach, down the allotment etc. You can't.

Unfortunately you are confusing 2 issues here and you are bringing in another completely different and unrelated topic, the choice of burial, which does not help in the discussion of opt-in/out.

The issue is about organ transplant and an opt in/out system. This would, in my view, be highly unethical namely to allow the state control over my body - and if the opt out system were to happen in England, I would be amongst the first to opt out. I would also be encouraging friends and family to not allow the state to assume consent.

No I'm using a parallel example to highlight the ridiculous aspect of your argument. The one has absolutely nothing to do with the other and is not even a good analogy - otherwise you could enter a discussion on driverless cars into the debate- it would make just as much sense...

It's an example of how you don't control your body after death already so some paranoia about state control doesn't make any sense.

It is not at all paranoia, it could be for a number of very genuine reasons and we should not make assumptions about other people's motives : for example there is a belief (associated with some religions) that the body should not be cut to pieces after death, or it could be out of respect for the surviving members of the family who might be horrified by the idea or it could be the fundamental belief that my body with all its parts is mine. Let's face it there is precious little else we can claim to own these days. The expression that a mother "gives" life to the unborn says it all really? It is a gift and therefore should not be taken away unless that gift is given freely.

"

And those people are free to opt out. Nobody is forcing anyone to stay on the donor list.

And nobody is taking life away. Your premise is nonsense.

Every religion that claims to care for the well-being of others is hypocritical if it insists that you shouldn't give life when yours is gone. But very few actually oppose donations so again you're inventing excuses that don't exist in reality.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *urlesque!Woman
over a year ago

Gloucester


"

"More people would opt out as a direct result of this assumption" ? The evidence is overwhelmingly the opposite actually. Do some research before spouting off.

Also you have never had full control of your body after death. Try getting buried in the local park, on your favourite beach, down the allotment etc. You can't.

Unfortunately you are confusing 2 issues here and you are bringing in another completely different and unrelated topic, the choice of burial, which does not help in the discussion of opt-in/out.

The issue is about organ transplant and an opt in/out system. This would, in my view, be highly unethical namely to allow the state control over my body - and if the opt out system were to happen in England, I would be amongst the first to opt out. I would also be encouraging friends and family to not allow the state to assume consent.

No I'm using a parallel example to highlight the ridiculous aspect of your argument. The one has absolutely nothing to do with the other and is not even a good analogy - otherwise you could enter a discussion on driverless cars into the debate- it would make just as much sense...

It's an example of how you don't control your body after death already so some paranoia about state control doesn't make any sense.

It is not at all paranoia, it could be for a number of very genuine reasons and we should not make assumptions about other people's motives : for example there is a belief (associated with some religions) that the body should not be cut to pieces after death, or it could be out of respect for the surviving members of the family who might be horrified by the idea or it could be the fundamental belief that my body with all its parts is mine. Let's face it there is precious little else we can claim to own these days. The expression that a mother "gives" life to the unborn says it all really? It is a gift and therefore should not be taken away unless that gift is given freely.

And those people are free to opt out. Nobody is forcing anyone to stay on the donor list.

And nobody is taking life away. Your premise is nonsense.

Every religion that claims to care for the well-being of others is hypocritical if it insists that you shouldn't give life when yours is gone. But very few actually oppose donations so again you're inventing excuses that don't exist in reality."

You do not seem to understand or perhaps I am not being clear enough.

In the case of opt-in I freely choose what I want to happen with my body. Nobody can make the assumption I am ok with it unless I have signed the paper.

In the case of opt-out the assumption is made that my body can be used to harvest organs because I did not object and I may no longer be able to object eg if I am injured and unconscious.

There is a fundamental difference because of the "assumption of consent" being the way forward.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ancastermanMan
over a year ago

carnforth


"

"More people would opt out as a direct result of this assumption" ? The evidence is overwhelmingly the opposite actually. Do some research before spouting off.

Also you have never had full control of your body after death. Try getting buried in the local park, on your favourite beach, down the allotment etc. You can't.

Unfortunately you are confusing 2 issues here and you are bringing in another completely different and unrelated topic, the choice of burial, which does not help in the discussion of opt-in/out.

The issue is about organ transplant and an opt in/out system. This would, in my view, be highly unethical namely to allow the state control over my body - and if the opt out system were to happen in England, I would be amongst the first to opt out. I would also be encouraging friends and family to not allow the state to assume consent.

No I'm using a parallel example to highlight the ridiculous aspect of your argument. The one has absolutely nothing to do with the other and is not even a good analogy - otherwise you could enter a discussion on driverless cars into the debate- it would make just as much sense...

It's an example of how you don't control your body after death already so some paranoia about state control doesn't make any sense.

It is not at all paranoia, it could be for a number of very genuine reasons and we should not make assumptions about other people's motives : for example there is a belief (associated with some religions) that the body should not be cut to pieces after death, or it could be out of respect for the surviving members of the family who might be horrified by the idea or it could be the fundamental belief that my body with all its parts is mine. Let's face it there is precious little else we can claim to own these days. The expression that a mother "gives" life to the unborn says it all really? It is a gift and therefore should not be taken away unless that gift is given freely.

And those people are free to opt out. Nobody is forcing anyone to stay on the donor list.

And nobody is taking life away. Your premise is nonsense.

Every religion that claims to care for the well-being of others is hypocritical if it insists that you shouldn't give life when yours is gone. But very few actually oppose donations so again you're inventing excuses that don't exist in reality.You do not seem to understand or perhaps I am not being clear enough.

In the case of opt-in I freely choose what I want to happen with my body. Nobody can make the assumption I am ok with it unless I have signed the paper.

In the case of opt-out the assumption is made that my body can be used to harvest organs because I did not object and I may no longer be able to object eg if I am injured and unconscious.

There is a fundamental difference because of the "assumption of consent" being the way forward.

"

There's a piece of stupidity there. If you are injured or unconscious you're ALIVE so taking your organs isn't relevant at all.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Opt out all the way.

My son has had two kidney transplants (first rejected) and I will forever be grateful to the donor(s) and their families.

Without the transplant my son wasn't expected to live past 30 (long term renal failure and dialyis can cause some horrific side effects/ other illnesses).

He has been dialysis free for a year now and well, I just can't begin to describe the happiness and how my whole families life has changed.

Fantastic argument for the benefits of organ donation and why people should consider being a donor.

And thankfully this is a successful and happy story, and is despite the opt in system still in use.

Therefore I’d argue this appeals more so for opt in, rather than an argument for opt out?Absolutely - forcing people into an opt out would in my view be morally wrong as it assumes you do not own your body. More people would opt out as a direct result of this assumption.

"More people would opt out as a direct result of this assumption" ? The evidence is overwhelmingly the opposite actually. Do some research before spouting off.

Also you have never had full control of your body after death. Try getting buried in the local park, on your favourite beach, down the allotment etc. You can't. "

Spouting off??

What evidence do you speak of? can you reference it?

You've already demonstrated an ignorance towards racism, and appear to be bordering on fanaticism in regards to the subject in debate, and now resorting to personal slights?

All in mind that you seem to have suggested you're closely linked to an organisation or body that works for organ donation in some manner?

In my opinion, not setting a good example in my opinion...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *urlesque!Woman
over a year ago

Gloucester


"

Every religion that claims to care for the well-being of others is hypocritical if it insists that you shouldn't give life when yours is gone. But very few actually oppose donations so again you're inventing excuses that don't exist in reality."

Again, this is a big assumption.. "every religion that claims" is making a judgement on that religion and the people who follow it. You do not know, I do not know precisely how many people are for or against it and it by and large irrelevant.

How would you feel, if the powers to be decided one day that people should donate one of their kidneys to somebody who is on dialysis. We can function perfectly with one kidney ... so why not force people to donate one..

I am playing devil's advocate here so it is not meant to be taken literally - I am merely illustrating the issue of consent.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *urlesque!Woman
over a year ago

Gloucester


"

There's a piece of stupidity there. If you are injured or unconscious you're ALIVE so taking your organs isn't relevant at all."

I think if you feel the need to (try and) insult fellow forumites you have probably realised that your reasoning does not stand up to scrutiny?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

There's a piece of stupidity there. If you are injured or unconscious you're ALIVE so taking your organs isn't relevant at all.

I think if you feel the need to (try and) insult fellow forumites you have probably realised that your reasoning does not stand up to scrutiny?"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The problem with opting in is, you might get into some serious trouble before you get around to it. And even though you was going opt in, no one knows and your organs don’t get donated meaning some poor bugger has to do with out

Same with opt out...if you don't get to doing it your fucked..you don't own your own organs any more

Very very wrong "

You're dead.. you don't own anything once you're dead

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The subject matter reminds me of a well known saying.

"its better to seek forgiveness than permission"

And I cant help feel that the "opt out" system operates on the same premise.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *urlesque!Woman
over a year ago

Gloucester


"The subject matter reminds me of a well known saying.

"its better to seek forgiveness than permission"

And I cant help feel that the "opt out" system operates on the same premise. "

you summed it up nicely - why didn't I think of that!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Also you have never had full control of your body after death. Try getting buried in the local park, on your favourite beach, down the allotment etc. You can't. "

Just to be a pedant, you are very much still alive, albeit brain dead when organs are harvested.

Which is also why family's struggle togive consent for harvesting as it means that they say goodbye to a loved one as they get wheeled off to theatre and not as they breathe their last breath

And you can bury a body pretty much anywhere on private land as long as no one else is alreadu buried there

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *evil_u_knowMan
over a year ago

city


"You're dead.. you don't own anything once you're dead"

So then you would be okay with the government taking all your money and belongings and selling them and using the money as they please?

After all youre dead, you dont own it, and what do you care, right?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ancastermanMan
over a year ago

carnforth


"You're dead.. you don't own anything once you're dead

So then you would be okay with the government taking all your money and belongings and selling them and using the money as they please?

After all youre dead, you dont own it, and what do you care, right?"

As noted already, if I don't make a will, that is exactly what happens to my estate (though it is the Crown not the government's doing.) So making a will is my way of opting out of my assets going to them rather than my chosen heirs.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ancastermanMan
over a year ago

carnforth


"Also you have never had full control of your body after death. Try getting buried in the local park, on your favourite beach, down the allotment etc. You can't.

Just to be a pedant, you are very much still alive, albeit brain dead when organs are harvested.

Which is also why family's struggle togive consent for harvesting as it means that they say goodbye to a loved one as they get wheeled off to theatre and not as they breathe their last breath

And you can bury a body pretty much anywhere on private land as long as no one else is alreadu buried there"

No. In the UK there are multiple criteria to confirm death before organ removal. Brain Stem Death or Circulatory Death both involve two doctors doing a range of tests to confirm death.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ancastermanMan
over a year ago

carnforth


"

There's a piece of stupidity there. If you are injured or unconscious you're ALIVE so taking your organs isn't relevant at all.

I think if you feel the need to (try and) insult fellow forumites you have probably realised that your reasoning does not stand up to scrutiny?"

That a particular comment is stupid doesn't imply that the commenter is stupid. It is possible and common to be right on many things yet say something stupid occasionally.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here


"You're dead.. you don't own anything once you're dead

So then you would be okay with the government taking all your money and belongings and selling them and using the money as they please?

After all youre dead, you dont own it, and what do you care, right?

As noted already, if I don't make a will, that is exactly what happens to my estate (though it is the Crown not the government's doing.) So making a will is my way of opting out of my assets going to them rather than my chosen heirs.

"

Not quite correct . Your will is making an instruction as to what you want done with your assets.

If you want to donate your organs - you sign up to the register . That’s your right and decision!

An opt out system would tell you from the start - were havin your organs unless you say otherwise. And to my mind that’s the crux of the discussion .

Many don’t like the fact that the state are effectively owning you, unless you tell them otherwise.

Quite staggering there are so many who on one hand shout from the rooftops about protecting civil rights etc.. and yet this opt-out system gets waived through without any query or question

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ancastermanMan
over a year ago

carnforth


"You're dead.. you don't own anything once you're dead

So then you would be okay with the government taking all your money and belongings and selling them and using the money as they please?

After all youre dead, you dont own it, and what do you care, right?

As noted already, if I don't make a will, that is exactly what happens to my estate (though it is the Crown not the government's doing.) So making a will is my way of opting out of my assets going to them rather than my chosen heirs.

Not quite correct . Your will is making an instruction as to what you want done with your assets.

If you want to donate your organs - you sign up to the register . That’s your right and decision!

An opt out system would tell you from the start - were havin your organs unless you say otherwise. And to my mind that’s the crux of the discussion .

Many don’t like the fact that the state are effectively owning you, unless you tell them otherwise.

Quite staggering there are so many who on one hand shout from the rooftops about protecting civil rights etc.. and yet this opt-out system gets waived through without any query or question "

And the law tells me from the start the crown is taking my assets unless i make a will.

If you have the right to opt out you haven't lost any rights. It would only be a civil rights issue if you couldn't opt out.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *urlesque!Woman
over a year ago

Gloucester


"

Many don’t like the fact that the state are effectively owning you, unless you tell them otherwise.

Quite staggering there are so many who on one hand shout from the rooftops about protecting civil rights etc.. and yet this opt-out system gets waived through without any query or question "

Precisely - it is worrying. It worries me for all those who may not have given it enough thought, who may not understand implications. Assuming their consent is simply not right or fair.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *onnie And Clyde9070Couple
over a year ago

Leeds


"People should have to opt out. Yes, your body and organs are yours, but neglecting someone else's health when you're already dead, is not something we should accept.

Be nice, save lives, even when you're dead."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here


"You're dead.. you don't own anything once you're dead

So then you would be okay with the government taking all your money and belongings and selling them and using the money as they please?

After all youre dead, you dont own it, and what do you care, right?

As noted already, if I don't make a will, that is exactly what happens to my estate (though it is the Crown not the government's doing.) So making a will is my way of opting out of my assets going to them rather than my chosen heirs.

Not quite correct . Your will is making an instruction as to what you want done with your assets.

If you want to donate your organs - you sign up to the register . That’s your right and decision!

An opt out system would tell you from the start - were havin your organs unless you say otherwise. And to my mind that’s the crux of the discussion .

Many don’t like the fact that the state are effectively owning you, unless you tell them otherwise.

Quite staggering there are so many who on one hand shout from the rooftops about protecting civil rights etc.. and yet this opt-out system gets waived through without any query or question

And the law tells me from the start the crown is taking my assets unless i make a will.

If you have the right to opt out you haven't lost any rights. It would only be a civil rights issue if you couldn't opt out."

So it’s ok that when you are born the system “owns” your body/organs in the event of your death ? And your happy for that to be the default legal state of affairs ?? Really?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ancastermanMan
over a year ago

carnforth


"You're dead.. you don't own anything once you're dead

So then you would be okay with the government taking all your money and belongings and selling them and using the money as they please?

After all youre dead, you dont own it, and what do you care, right?

As noted already, if I don't make a will, that is exactly what happens to my estate (though it is the Crown not the government's doing.) So making a will is my way of opting out of my assets going to them rather than my chosen heirs.

Not quite correct . Your will is making an instruction as to what you want done with your assets.

If you want to donate your organs - you sign up to the register . That’s your right and decision!

An opt out system would tell you from the start - were havin your organs unless you say otherwise. And to my mind that’s the crux of the discussion .

Many don’t like the fact that the state are effectively owning you, unless you tell them otherwise.

Quite staggering there are so many who on one hand shout from the rooftops about protecting civil rights etc.. and yet this opt-out system gets waived through without any query or question

And the law tells me from the start the crown is taking my assets unless i make a will.

If you have the right to opt out you haven't lost any rights. It would only be a civil rights issue if you couldn't opt out.

So it’s ok that when you are born the system “owns” your body/organs in the event of your death ? And your happy for that to be the default legal state of affairs ?? Really?

"

What better legacy than saving up to 9 lives?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here


"You're dead.. you don't own anything once you're dead

So then you would be okay with the government taking all your money and belongings and selling them and using the money as they please?

After all youre dead, you dont own it, and what do you care, right?

As noted already, if I don't make a will, that is exactly what happens to my estate (though it is the Crown not the government's doing.) So making a will is my way of opting out of my assets going to them rather than my chosen heirs.

Not quite correct . Your will is making an instruction as to what you want done with your assets.

If you want to donate your organs - you sign up to the register . That’s your right and decision!

An opt out system would tell you from the start - were havin your organs unless you say otherwise. And to my mind that’s the crux of the discussion .

Many don’t like the fact that the state are effectively owning you, unless you tell them otherwise.

Quite staggering there are so many who on one hand shout from the rooftops about protecting civil rights etc.. and yet this opt-out system gets waived through without any query or question

And the law tells me from the start the crown is taking my assets unless i make a will.

If you have the right to opt out you haven't lost any rights. It would only be a civil rights issue if you couldn't opt out.

So it’s ok that when you are born the system “owns” your body/organs in the event of your death ? And your happy for that to be the default legal state of affairs ?? Really?

What better legacy than saving up to 9 lives? "

that’s not being questioned !

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Opt out all the way.

My son has had two kidney transplants (first rejected) and I will forever be grateful to the donor(s) and their families.

Without the transplant my son wasn't expected to live past 30 (long term renal failure and dialyis can cause some horrific side effects/ other illnesses).

He has been dialysis free for a year now and well, I just can't begin to describe the happiness and how my whole families life has changed.

Fantastic argument for the benefits of organ donation and why people should consider being a donor.

And thankfully this is a successful and happy story, and is despite the opt in system still in use.

Therefore I’d argue this appeals more so for opt in, rather than an argument for opt out?Absolutely - forcing people into an opt out would in my view be morally wrong as it assumes you do not own your body. More people would opt out as a direct result of this assumption.

I find it abhorrent I might actually have to go and seek permission from some faceless organisation to keep parts of my own body..that's the bit that I don't like and shouldn't have to do...no way should a human being have to go and ask someone else to be able to keep their own parts..it's some dystopian sci fi shit that is.

Imagine it was our money they wanted to harvest after our death..folk would go mental

If I don't make a will my estate goes to the crown when i die. So there's your harvesting of money. Of course i can opt out by making a will."

They can do that too eh?

Some illusion of freedom we're being fed innit?...what shitty things the powerful do to people, and the people love them for it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *evil_u_knowMan
over a year ago

city


"No. In the UK there are multiple criteria to confirm death before organ removal. Brain Stem Death or Circulatory Death both involve two doctors doing a range of tests to confirm death. "

Yes and google it, one person was confirmed dead by 3 doctors and recovered.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Opt out all the way.

My son has had two kidney transplants (first rejected) and I will forever be grateful to the donor(s) and their families.

Without the transplant my son wasn't expected to live past 30 (long term renal failure and dialyis can cause some horrific side effects/ other illnesses).

He has been dialysis free for a year now and well, I just can't begin to describe the happiness and how my whole families life has changed.

Fantastic argument for the benefits of organ donation and why people should consider being a donor.

And thankfully this is a successful and happy story, and is despite the opt in system still in use.

Therefore I’d argue this appeals more so for opt in, rather than an argument for opt out?Absolutely - forcing people into an opt out would in my view be morally wrong as it assumes you do not own your body. More people would opt out as a direct result of this assumption.

I find it abhorrent I might actually have to go and seek permission from some faceless organisation to keep parts of my own body..that's the bit that I don't like and shouldn't have to do...no way should a human being have to go and ask someone else to be able to keep their own parts..it's some dystopian sci fi shit that is.

Imagine it was our money they wanted to harvest after our death..folk would go mental

If I don't make a will my estate goes to the crown when i die. So there's your harvesting of money. Of course i can opt out by making a will.

They can do that too eh?

Some illusion of freedom we're being fed innit?...what shitty things the powerful do to people, and the people love them for it.

"

Hang on...my dad died very recently, no will. No authority has taken anything he left behind (nor will they) so what's this not having a will means the state get your stuff..that's not correct. Maybe if you have zero people to leave it too but all his shit has gone to the family and myself. No official will see penny one from him

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ancastermanMan
over a year ago

carnforth


"You're dead.. you don't own anything once you're dead

So then you would be okay with the government taking all your money and belongings and selling them and using the money as they please?

After all youre dead, you dont own it, and what do you care, right?

As noted already, if I don't make a will, that is exactly what happens to my estate (though it is the Crown not the government's doing.) So making a will is my way of opting out of my assets going to them rather than my chosen heirs.

Not quite correct . Your will is making an instruction as to what you want done with your assets.

If you want to donate your organs - you sign up to the register . That’s your right and decision!

An opt out system would tell you from the start - were havin your organs unless you say otherwise. And to my mind that’s the crux of the discussion .

Many don’t like the fact that the state are effectively owning you, unless you tell them otherwise.

Quite staggering there are so many who on one hand shout from the rooftops about protecting civil rights etc.. and yet this opt-out system gets waived through without any query or question

And the law tells me from the start the crown is taking my assets unless i make a will.

If you have the right to opt out you haven't lost any rights. It would only be a civil rights issue if you couldn't opt out.

So it’s ok that when you are born the system “owns” your body/organs in the event of your death ? And your happy for that to be the default legal state of affairs ?? Really?

What better legacy than saving up to 9 lives?

that’s not being questioned !

"

Making it simpler works for me.

Currently people don't opt in for a variety of reasons, many of which are overcome by opt out systems.

They intend to but forget.

They think they are too old.

They think they are too young.

They think they're ineligible because they're gay.

They think they are ineligible for other health reasons such as had cancer.

They think their lifestyle has made their organs useless.

They don't realise the range of ways they can help.

They think their church forbids it.

All this would be cleared away by an opt out system.

Under the Opt out system those with valid reasons not to donate would be able to opt out. The ones who simply didn't realise they could donate are covered.

I'm happy with this and many people I've spoken to are also keen for it to happen.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ancastermanMan
over a year ago

carnforth


"Opt out all the way.

My son has had two kidney transplants (first rejected) and I will forever be grateful to the donor(s) and their families.

Without the transplant my son wasn't expected to live past 30 (long term renal failure and dialyis can cause some horrific side effects/ other illnesses).

He has been dialysis free for a year now and well, I just can't begin to describe the happiness and how my whole families life has changed.

Fantastic argument for the benefits of organ donation and why people should consider being a donor.

And thankfully this is a successful and happy story, and is despite the opt in system still in use.

Therefore I’d argue this appeals more so for opt in, rather than an argument for opt out?Absolutely - forcing people into an opt out would in my view be morally wrong as it assumes you do not own your body. More people would opt out as a direct result of this assumption.

I find it abhorrent I might actually have to go and seek permission from some faceless organisation to keep parts of my own body..that's the bit that I don't like and shouldn't have to do...no way should a human being have to go and ask someone else to be able to keep their own parts..it's some dystopian sci fi shit that is.

Imagine it was our money they wanted to harvest after our death..folk would go mental

If I don't make a will my estate goes to the crown when i die. So there's your harvesting of money. Of course i can opt out by making a will.

They can do that too eh?

Some illusion of freedom we're being fed innit?...what shitty things the powerful do to people, and the people love them for it.

Hang on...my dad died very recently, no will. No authority has taken anything he left behind (nor will they) so what's this not having a will means the state get your stuff..that's not correct. Maybe if you have zero people to leave it too but all his shit has gone to the family and myself. No official will see penny one from him "

Sorry to hear about your dad.

As to my point, if you live in the Duchy of Lancaster (and I think the Duchy of Cornwall maybe) what i said applies. If you live elsewhere what you said applies.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *evil_u_knowMan
over a year ago

city


"As noted already, if I don't make a will, that is exactly what happens to my estate (though it is the Crown not the government's doing.) So making a will is my way of opting out of my assets going to them rather than my chosen heirs.

"

If you die without a will the government does not get your assets, it goes to your kids in equal shares, or grandkids or family.

It is presumed you did not want the government to just take it, and wanted to look after your family.

So why would we presume you don't want your body?

How about this, we pay people for being organ donors and run an opt in program. If you are an organ donor they will simply pay for your funeral. Then people can do it and look after strangers and their family at the same time.

Why does the government think it has a right to just take your body?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ancastermanMan
over a year ago

carnforth

[Removed by poster at 15/12/17 21:12:58]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ancastermanMan
over a year ago

carnforth


"As noted already, if I don't make a will, that is exactly what happens to my estate (though it is the Crown not the government's doing.) So making a will is my way of opting out of my assets going to them rather than my chosen heirs.

If you die without a will the government does not get your assets, it goes to your kids in equal shares, or grandkids or family.

It is presumed you did not want the government to just take it, and wanted to look after your family.

So why would we presume you don't want your body?

How about this, we pay people for being organ donors and run an opt in program. If you are an organ donor they will simply pay for your funeral. Then people can do it and look after strangers and their family at the same time.

Why does the government think it has a right to just take your body?

"

If you live in the Duchy of Lancaster and die intestate your estate goes to the crown (not the government). Elsewhere you are correct but I said "If I don't make a will" not if you don't.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Opt out all the way.

My son has had two kidney transplants (first rejected) and I will forever be grateful to the donor(s) and their families.

Without the transplant my son wasn't expected to live past 30 (long term renal failure and dialyis can cause some horrific side effects/ other illnesses).

He has been dialysis free for a year now and well, I just can't begin to describe the happiness and how my whole families life has changed.

Fantastic argument for the benefits of organ donation and why people should consider being a donor.

And thankfully this is a successful and happy story, and is despite the opt in system still in use.

Therefore I’d argue this appeals more so for opt in, rather than an argument for opt out?Absolutely - forcing people into an opt out would in my view be morally wrong as it assumes you do not own your body. More people would opt out as a direct result of this assumption.

I find it abhorrent I might actually have to go and seek permission from some faceless organisation to keep parts of my own body..that's the bit that I don't like and shouldn't have to do...no way should a human being have to go and ask someone else to be able to keep their own parts..it's some dystopian sci fi shit that is.

Imagine it was our money they wanted to harvest after our death..folk would go mental

If I don't make a will my estate goes to the crown when i die. So there's your harvesting of money. Of course i can opt out by making a will.

They can do that too eh?

Some illusion of freedom we're being fed innit?...what shitty things the powerful do to people, and the people love them for it.

Hang on...my dad died very recently, no will. No authority has taken anything he left behind (nor will they) so what's this not having a will means the state get your stuff..that's not correct. Maybe if you have zero people to leave it too but all his shit has gone to the family and myself. No official will see penny one from him

Sorry to hear about your dad.

As to my point, if you live in the Duchy of Lancaster (and I think the Duchy of Cornwall maybe) what i said applies. If you live elsewhere what you said applies."

Thank you.

And I live in Lancaster.

He wasn't a papertrail guy the old man..couldn't write, old school, just assumed it would all come to the family, and it has..never so much as a letter or call from anyone seeking his assets left behind. It just came to his family with no paperwork, as it should I feel.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ancastermanMan
over a year ago

carnforth


"Opt out all the way.

My son has had two kidney transplants (first rejected) and I will forever be grateful to the donor(s) and their families.

Without the transplant my son wasn't expected to live past 30 (long term renal failure and dialyis can cause some horrific side effects/ other illnesses).

He has been dialysis free for a year now and well, I just can't begin to describe the happiness and how my whole families life has changed.

Fantastic argument for the benefits of organ donation and why people should consider being a donor.

And thankfully this is a successful and happy story, and is despite the opt in system still in use.

Therefore I’d argue this appeals more so for opt in, rather than an argument for opt out?Absolutely - forcing people into an opt out would in my view be morally wrong as it assumes you do not own your body. More people would opt out as a direct result of this assumption.

I find it abhorrent I might actually have to go and seek permission from some faceless organisation to keep parts of my own body..that's the bit that I don't like and shouldn't have to do...no way should a human being have to go and ask someone else to be able to keep their own parts..it's some dystopian sci fi shit that is.

Imagine it was our money they wanted to harvest after our death..folk would go mental

If I don't make a will my estate goes to the crown when i die. So there's your harvesting of money. Of course i can opt out by making a will.

They can do that too eh?

Some illusion of freedom we're being fed innit?...what shitty things the powerful do to people, and the people love them for it.

Hang on...my dad died very recently, no will. No authority has taken anything he left behind (nor will they) so what's this not having a will means the state get your stuff..that's not correct. Maybe if you have zero people to leave it too but all his shit has gone to the family and myself. No official will see penny one from him

Sorry to hear about your dad.

As to my point, if you live in the Duchy of Lancaster (and I think the Duchy of Cornwall maybe) what i said applies. If you live elsewhere what you said applies.

Thank you.

And I live in Lancaster.

He wasn't a papertrail guy the old man..couldn't write, old school, just assumed it would all come to the family, and it has..never so much as a letter or call from anyone seeking his assets left behind. It just came to his family with no paperwork, as it should I feel. "

I agree that is how it should work, and it may be that the rule is no longer enforced. However my solicitor warned me when i bought my house nr Lancaster.

Perhaps you got lucky but I won't tell anybody.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here


"You're dead.. you don't own anything once you're dead

So then you would be okay with the government taking all your money and belongings and selling them and using the money as they please?

After all youre dead, you dont own it, and what do you care, right?

As noted already, if I don't make a will, that is exactly what happens to my estate (though it is the Crown not the government's doing.) So making a will is my way of opting out of my assets going to them rather than my chosen heirs.

Not quite correct . Your will is making an instruction as to what you want done with your assets.

If you want to donate your organs - you sign up to the register . That’s your right and decision!

An opt out system would tell you from the start - were havin your organs unless you say otherwise. And to my mind that’s the crux of the discussion .

Many don’t like the fact that the state are effectively owning you, unless you tell them otherwise.

Quite staggering there are so many who on one hand shout from the rooftops about protecting civil rights etc.. and yet this opt-out system gets waived through without any query or question

And the law tells me from the start the crown is taking my assets unless i make a will.

If you have the right to opt out you haven't lost any rights. It would only be a civil rights issue if you couldn't opt out.

So it’s ok that when you are born the system “owns” your body/organs in the event of your death ? And your happy for that to be the default legal state of affairs ?? Really?

What better legacy than saving up to 9 lives?

that’s not being questioned !

Making it simpler works for me.

Currently people don't opt in for a variety of reasons, many of which are overcome by opt out systems.

They intend to but forget.

They think they are too old.

They think they are too young.

They think they're ineligible because they're gay.

They think they are ineligible for other health reasons such as had cancer.

They think their lifestyle has made their organs useless.

They don't realise the range of ways they can help.

They think their church forbids it.

All this would be cleared away by an opt out system.

Under the Opt out system those with valid reasons not to donate would be able to opt out. The ones who simply didn't realise they could donate are covered.

I'm happy with this and many people I've spoken to are also keen for it to happen. "

Your missing the point

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Opt out all the way.

My son has had two kidney transplants (first rejected) and I will forever be grateful to the donor(s) and their families.

Without the transplant my son wasn't expected to live past 30 (long term renal failure and dialyis can cause some horrific side effects/ other illnesses).

He has been dialysis free for a year now and well, I just can't begin to describe the happiness and how my whole families life has changed.

Fantastic argument for the benefits of organ donation and why people should consider being a donor.

And thankfully this is a successful and happy story, and is despite the opt in system still in use.

Therefore I’d argue this appeals more so for opt in, rather than an argument for opt out?Absolutely - forcing people into an opt out would in my view be morally wrong as it assumes you do not own your body. More people would opt out as a direct result of this assumption.

I find it abhorrent I might actually have to go and seek permission from some faceless organisation to keep parts of my own body..that's the bit that I don't like and shouldn't have to do...no way should a human being have to go and ask someone else to be able to keep their own parts..it's some dystopian sci fi shit that is.

Imagine it was our money they wanted to harvest after our death..folk would go mental

If I don't make a will my estate goes to the crown when i die. So there's your harvesting of money. Of course i can opt out by making a will.

They can do that too eh?

Some illusion of freedom we're being fed innit?...what shitty things the powerful do to people, and the people love them for it.

Hang on...my dad died very recently, no will. No authority has taken anything he left behind (nor will they) so what's this not having a will means the state get your stuff..that's not correct. Maybe if you have zero people to leave it too but all his shit has gone to the family and myself. No official will see penny one from him

Sorry to hear about your dad.

As to my point, if you live in the Duchy of Lancaster (and I think the Duchy of Cornwall maybe) what i said applies. If you live elsewhere what you said applies.

Thank you.

And I live in Lancaster.

He wasn't a papertrail guy the old man..couldn't write, old school, just assumed it would all come to the family, and it has..never so much as a letter or call from anyone seeking his assets left behind. It just came to his family with no paperwork, as it should I feel.

I agree that is how it should work, and it may be that the rule is no longer enforced. However my solicitor warned me when i bought my house nr Lancaster.

Perhaps you got lucky but I won't tell anybody."

I couldn't tell you why..perhaps I did, perhaps the powers that be aren't as far reaching as they would have us believe (in my experience, you can get away with a hell of a lot in life your told not to do so i lean towards that)

And it's Here for anyone to read, sure there must be some of the government's overseers knocking about on here somewhere...I'll maintain my view to them in the flesh. I doubt they'd find much anyhow, he wasn't a papertrail kind of man, on paper he's worth nowt. Not even a bank account of his own. Had the right idea.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The system of opt out can never guarantee that everyone who hasn’t done so, doesn’t want to donate organs.

Where as the system of opt in, specifically guarantees that everyone who did so, wanted to.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ieman300Man
over a year ago

Best Greggs in Cheshire East

Two examples of many scenarios. The good and the bad.

Let's say opt out becomes the default, family say is taken away and you hadn't opted out. Your body gets farmed for all it's bits and bobs. Family has nothing left of you to bury.

That is fucked up.

Opposite scenario. You have opted in. Body gets farmed. Family knows you have consented and are happy for this to happen. They take comfort in this.

If someone as opted in or out then that should be the be all and end all. If they haven't then it should be next of kin to decide. If someone passes with neither option chosen and there is no other family left, then and only then should it be a default of opt in.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lanemikeMan
over a year ago

Bolton


"

The system of opt out can never guarantee that everyone who hasn’t done so, doesn’t want to donate organs.

Where as the system of opt in, specifically guarantees that everyone who did so, wanted to. "

Absolutely true. "Opt in" has worked well for decades, why should we move over to "opt out". Just don't see the necessity for any change.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ust PeachyWoman
over a year ago

Prestonish


"I like the idea of the opt out.

If there's anything useful left of me when I shuffle off, they can have it. I wouldn't want to hold up any potential donations because I'd forgot to opt in."

Exactly this!

I imagine it would be like the NHS when it was first introduced - saving thousands of lives in the first year alone! Xx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ust PeachyWoman
over a year ago

Prestonish


"

The system of opt out can never guarantee that everyone who hasn’t done so, doesn’t want to donate organs.

Where as the system of opt in, specifically guarantees that everyone who did so, wanted to.

Absolutely true. "Opt in" has worked well for decades, why should we move over to "opt out". Just don't see the necessity for any change."

Perhaps you haven’t seen the waiting list of those who need organs?

Or the statistics of how many die each year waiting for organs?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

The system of opt out can never guarantee that everyone who hasn’t done so, doesn’t want to donate organs.

Where as the system of opt in, specifically guarantees that everyone who did so, wanted to.

Absolutely true. "Opt in" has worked well for decades, why should we move over to "opt out". Just don't see the necessity for any change."

Seconded...there should be no risk of people not getting around to opting out and having their organs stolen because of it, which is essentially what they will be.

It's backwards.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *urlesque!Woman
over a year ago

Gloucester


"

The system of opt out can never guarantee that everyone who hasn’t done so, doesn’t want to donate organs.

Where as the system of opt in, specifically guarantees that everyone who did so, wanted to.

Absolutely true. "Opt in" has worked well for decades, why should we move over to "opt out". Just don't see the necessity for any change.

Seconded...there should be no risk of people not getting around to opting out and having their organs stolen because of it, which is essentially what they will be.

It's backwards."

seconded

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lanemikeMan
over a year ago

Bolton


"

The system of opt out can never guarantee that everyone who hasn’t done so, doesn’t want to donate organs.

Where as the system of opt in, specifically guarantees that everyone who did so, wanted to.

Absolutely true. "Opt in" has worked well for decades, why should we move over to "opt out". Just don't see the necessity for any change.

Perhaps you haven’t seen the waiting list of those who need organs?

Or the statistics of how many die each year waiting for organs? "

Yes exactly, "opt in" works well, no need to change to "opt out". Stay as we are.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *ancastermanMan
over a year ago

carnforth


"

The system of opt out can never guarantee that everyone who hasn’t done so, doesn’t want to donate organs.

Where as the system of opt in, specifically guarantees that everyone who did so, wanted to.

Absolutely true. "Opt in" has worked well for decades, why should we move over to "opt out". Just don't see the necessity for any change.

Perhaps you haven’t seen the waiting list of those who need organs?

Or the statistics of how many die each year waiting for organs?

Yes exactly, "opt in" works well, no need to change to "opt out". Stay as we are. "

3 people a week die in England awaiting a transplant. That's not working well, it works a bit but needs to be much better. Opt out will increase the potential donor base by 2.5x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top