Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Looks like the law in England could change ...opting OUT of organ donation instead of opting in ... what's everyone think about it... "We already do it in wales  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Looks like the law in England could change ...opting OUT of organ donation instead of opting in ... what's everyone think about it...
We already do it in wales "You certainly do... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Terrible idea. What ever happened to people having the right to choose. Before the riot ensues I am on the donor register, my choice, but don't believe anyone should have choices like this removed from them." They do have the right to choose, they opt out of the scheme if they choose to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Terrible idea. What ever happened to people having the right to choose. Before the riot ensues I am on the donor register, my choice, but don't believe anyone should have choices like this removed from them." But they can choose to opt out x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When I die, they can take what they want from my body, and just throw the carcass away. I've made close people aware of my wishes. And I'm on the donor register abd carry the card. " You do know that they won’t just discard your carcass don’t you. It has to be disposed of correctly, either buried or cremated. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Terrible idea. What ever happened to people having the right to choose. Before the riot ensues I am on the donor register, my choice, but don't believe anyone should have choices like this removed from them." People still have the choice, it's just the assumptions that have changed. There's no point waiting until your dead to decide, it's much harder to make the choice then. I also believe that family members shouldn't be able to withdraw consent. If people don't opt out when they're alive, then we should assume they chose to donate. Cal | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Terrible idea. What ever happened to people having the right to choose. Before the riot ensues I am on the donor register, my choice, but don't believe anyone should have choices like this removed from them. They do have the right to choose, they opt out of the scheme if they choose to. " Its a passive appropriation of personal rights by the state who know that most won't opt out and therefore an assumption by the state of control over a person's body. That's why it's an opt out, because they know most won't. I don't want the state to have that much control over my body during life or after. I don't belong to the state like some chattel. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When I die, they can take what they want from my body, and just throw the carcass away. I've made close people aware of my wishes. And I'm on the donor register abd carry the card. " First thing they'll do is insert a butt plug in your ass (a dead body soon wants to defecate). You don't need to be gay, just dead. An extra reason for the homophobes to dread the day | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"About time too. Thousands of lives will be saved. A lot of sick children too which can only be a good thing. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Terrible idea. What ever happened to people having the right to choose. Before the riot ensues I am on the donor register, my choice, but don't believe anyone should have choices like this removed from them. They do have the right to choose, they opt out of the scheme if they choose to. Its a passive appropriation of personal rights by the state who know that most won't opt out and therefore an assumption by the state of control over a person's body. That's why it's an opt out, because they know most won't. I don't want the state to have that much control over my body during life or after. I don't belong to the state like some chattel. " We’ll opt out then, it’s quite simple really. Do you have kids? If so, if one of your kids was in need of an organ to save their life would you refuse it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When I die, they can take what they want from my body, and just throw the carcass away. I've made close people aware of my wishes. And I'm on the donor register abd carry the card. First thing they'll do is insert a butt plug in your ass (a dead body soon wants to defecate). You don't need to be gay, just dead. An extra reason for the homophobes to dread the day "That’s not true, I’m sure you’re joking but just in case some people believe it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Looks like the law in England could change ...opting OUT of organ donation instead of opting in ... what's everyone think about it...
We already do it in wales "And it makes fuck all difference | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Looks like the law in England could change ...opting OUT of organ donation instead of opting in ... what's everyone think about it...
We already do it in wales
And it makes fuck all difference "To what? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Terrible idea. What ever happened to people having the right to choose. Before the riot ensues I am on the donor register, my choice, but don't believe anyone should have choices like this removed from them. They do have the right to choose, they opt out of the scheme if they choose to. Its a passive appropriation of personal rights by the state who know that most won't opt out and therefore an assumption by the state of control over a person's body. That's why it's an opt out, because they know most won't. I don't want the state to have that much control over my body during life or after. I don't belong to the state like some chattel. We’ll opt out then, it’s quite simple really. Do you have kids? If so, if one of your kids was in need of an organ to save their life would you refuse it?" Can I suggest you read the whole post before the mini rant. 
Especially the bit where I say I am on the donor register out of choice.
My choice not the default actions of some state who thinks it has rights over my body.
Apologies if that is far too complicated for you to follow...
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Looks like the law in England could change ...opting OUT of organ donation instead of opting in ... what's everyone think about it...
We already do it in wales
And it makes fuck all difference
To what?"To the number of organs. We live in a society where with regard to healthcare the wishes of a family carry more weight than the actual law. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But it will still need consent. I do think it's a good thing though. People will opt out if they are opposed to it but at the moment too many people fear their own mortality to opt in" I wonder if people think it's like tempting fate. Same reason many avoid getting a will. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only one person has the rite to bodily parts ,and that’s those born with them,they are not public property to be hacked at at there wish ,fine organ donation but opt in not out so wrong " Actually after you’re dead you have no right to anything. Including your own body or it’s parts | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Looks like the law in England could change ...opting OUT of organ donation instead of opting in ... what's everyone think about it...
We already do it in wales
And it makes fuck all difference
To what?
To the number of organs. We live in a society where with regard to healthcare the wishes of a family carry more weight than the actual law. "I didn't know that ...so basically a family member could refuse even though the dead person would wish their organs to be used?.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only one person has the rite to bodily parts ,and that’s those born with them,they are not public property to be hacked at at there wish ,fine organ donation but opt in not out so wrong Actually after you’re dead you have no right to anything. Including your own body or it’s parts" Really? Ever heard of the human tissue act? Ever wondered why there was such an outcry after alder hay? Or the ship that went down in the Thames? Or to be really crass hospitals don't dispose of bodies as clinical waste? Dead bodies are protected by law. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But it will still need consent. I do think it's a good thing though. People will opt out if they are opposed to it but at the moment too many people fear their own mortality to opt in I wonder if people think it's like tempting fate. Same reason many avoid getting a will. " I suspect it's exactly the same reason people don't have wills | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Looks like the law in England could change ...opting OUT of organ donation instead of opting in ... what's everyone think about it...
We already do it in wales
And it makes fuck all difference
To what?
To the number of organs. We live in a society where with regard to healthcare the wishes of a family carry more weight than the actual law.
I didn't know that ...so basically a family member could refuse even though the dead person would wish their organs to be used?.."You’re the hospital. Some guy said yes to organ donation but he is dead now. The family say no, what are you going to do? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only one person has the rite to bodily parts ,and that’s those born with them,they are not public property to be hacked at at there wish ,fine organ donation but opt in not out so wrong Actually after you’re dead you have no right to anything. Including your own body or it’s parts Really? Ever heard of the human tissue act? Ever wondered why there was such an outcry after alder hay? Or the ship that went down in the Thames? Or to be really crass hospitals don't dispose of bodies as clinical waste? Dead bodies are protected by law. " What are your rights after you’re dead? Yes hospitals have to adhere to good principles, but that doesn’t mean you actually have a right. How could you? You don’t exist. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Looks like the law in England could change ...opting OUT of organ donation instead of opting in ... what's everyone think about it...
We already do it in wales
And it makes fuck all difference
To what?
To the number of organs. We live in a society where with regard to healthcare the wishes of a family carry more weight than the actual law.
I didn't know that ...so basically a family member could refuse even though the dead person would wish their organs to be used?..
You’re the hospital. Some guy said yes to organ donation but he is dead now. The family say no, what are you going to do?"I wonder how many times that has happened?..be interesting to know more about it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only one person has the rite to bodily parts ,and that’s those born with them,they are not public property to be hacked at at there wish ,fine organ donation but opt in not out so wrong Actually after you’re dead you have no right to anything. Including your own body or it’s parts Really? Ever heard of the human tissue act? Ever wondered why there was such an outcry after alder hay? Or the ship that went down in the Thames? Or to be really crass hospitals don't dispose of bodies as clinical waste? Dead bodies are protected by law. What are your rights after you’re dead? Yes hospitals have to adhere to good principles, but that doesn’t mean you actually have a right. How could you? You don’t exist. " Dead bodies are protected by law. How they are looked after, how and where they are disposed of. The person may be dead but the body and it's parts still have rights | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Terrible idea. What ever happened to people having the right to choose. Before the riot ensues I am on the donor register, my choice, but don't believe anyone should have choices like this removed from them. They do have the right to choose, they opt out of the scheme if they choose to. Its a passive appropriation of personal rights by the state who know that most won't opt out and therefore an assumption by the state of control over a person's body. That's why it's an opt out, because they know most won't. I don't want the state to have that much control over my body during life or after. I don't belong to the state like some chattel. We’ll opt out then, it’s quite simple really. Do you have kids? If so, if one of your kids was in need of an organ to save their life would you refuse it? Can I suggest you read the whole post before the mini rant.
Especially the bit where I say I am on the donor register out of choice.
My choice not the default actions of some state who thinks it has rights over my body.
Apologies if that is far too complicated for you to follow...
"It’s not complicated at all. It’s obviously far too complicated for you to opt out tho isn’t it. Your choice is still there, they are not taking it away from you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Looks like the law in England could change ...opting OUT of organ donation instead of opting in ... what's everyone think about it...
We already do it in wales
And it makes fuck all difference
To what?
To the number of organs. We live in a society where with regard to healthcare the wishes of a family carry more weight than the actual law.
I didn't know that ...so basically a family member could refuse even though the dead person would wish their organs to be used?..
You’re the hospital. Some guy said yes to organ donation but he is dead now. The family say no, what are you going to do?
I wonder how many times that has happened?..be interesting to know more about it "Interesting emoji choice 
Reality is family's who know the the wishes of their loved ones very rarely object. That's why this law is so important. The main issue with numbers donating is the limited clinical circumstances where donation is possible | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Terrible idea. What ever happened to people having the right to choose. Before the riot ensues I am on the donor register, my choice, but don't believe anyone should have choices like this removed from them. They do have the right to choose, they opt out of the scheme if they choose to. Its a passive appropriation of personal rights by the state who know that most won't opt out and therefore an assumption by the state of control over a person's body. That's why it's an opt out, because they know most won't. I don't want the state to have that much control over my body during life or after. I don't belong to the state like some chattel. We’ll opt out then, it’s quite simple really. Do you have kids? If so, if one of your kids was in need of an organ to save their life would you refuse it? Can I suggest you read the whole post before the mini rant.
Especially the bit where I say I am on the donor register out of choice.
My choice not the default actions of some state who thinks it has rights over my body.
Apologies if that is far too complicated for you to follow...
It’s not complicated at all. It’s obviously far too complicated for you to opt out tho isn’t it. Your choice is still there, they are not taking it away from you."They will not just be taking a choice from me, but from millions of others who may be unaware they have the right to choose or may lack the skills to understand and make such choices. What then harvest the "undesireables" to provide body parts for those who "deserve" them? What do they take away next. Where do we say we the people have the right to choose. When are there no choices left we can make based on our own ethics humanity or personal morality. What when they come and say you can no longer choose who you have sex with? There is a much bigger picture to such statist intervention. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mr M has been a full body organ donor since he was 18, gives blood etc too. No good to you when you are dead he says. If it can save someone’s life, why not? " Update he just said he has stipulations that his organs cannot be given to Chavs or smokers | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Terrible idea. What ever happened to people having the right to choose. Before the riot ensues I am on the donor register, my choice, but don't believe anyone should have choices like this removed from them. They do have the right to choose, they opt out of the scheme if they choose to. Its a passive appropriation of personal rights by the state who know that most won't opt out and therefore an assumption by the state of control over a person's body. That's why it's an opt out, because they know most won't. I don't want the state to have that much control over my body during life or after. I don't belong to the state like some chattel. We’ll opt out then, it’s quite simple really. Do you have kids? If so, if one of your kids was in need of an organ to save their life would you refuse it? Can I suggest you read the whole post before the mini rant.
Especially the bit where I say I am on the donor register out of choice.
My choice not the default actions of some state who thinks it has rights over my body.
Apologies if that is far too complicated for you to follow...
It’s not complicated at all. It’s obviously far too complicated for you to opt out tho isn’t it. Your choice is still there, they are not taking it away from you.
They will not just be taking a choice from me, but from millions of others who may be unaware they have the right to choose or may lack the skills to understand and make such choices. What then harvest the "undesireables" to provide body parts for those who "deserve" them?
What do they take away next. Where do we say we the people have the right to choose. When are there no choices left we can make based on our own ethics humanity or personal morality.
What when they come and say you can no longer choose who you have sex with?
There is a much bigger picture to such statist intervention.
"How are you linking oopting out rather than opting in to somehow the state controlling who you can have seX with!!!  That's one hell of a leap | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Looks like the law in England could change ...opting OUT of organ donation instead of opting in ... what's everyone think about it...
We already do it in wales
And it makes fuck all difference
To what?
To the number of organs. We live in a society where with regard to healthcare the wishes of a family carry more weight than the actual law.
I didn't know that ...so basically a family member could refuse even though the dead person would wish their organs to be used?..
You’re the hospital. Some guy said yes to organ donation but he is dead now. The family say no, what are you going to do?
I wonder how many times that has happened?..be interesting to know more about it
Interesting emoji choice
Reality is family's who know the the wishes of their loved ones very rarely object. That's why this law is so important. The main issue with numbers donating is the limited clinical circumstances where donation is possible "It was a smiley emoji to you rather than the question I asked.... sorry for any confusion which can certainly happen during the reading of a message online | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can see Hines pointy totally. They can have whatever they want from me. I keep trying to give blood as they are crying out for my rare blood type they don’t however make it very easy or convenient for me to donate. I got sick of having to take a few hours off and drive an hour away just to donate so gave up. At least I won’t have to jump through hoops when I’m dead. Cut me up and share it out. " Around 6 % of the population have the most sort after blood group and I agree they don't make it easy for you to donate .. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" That’s not true, I’m sure you’re joking but just in case some people believe it. " No, I wasn't joking. A policeman told me that, based on his experience of call-outs to sudden deaths. Google also shows up some evidence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can see Hines pointy totally. They can have whatever they want from me. I keep trying to give blood as they are crying out for my rare blood type they don’t however make it very easy or convenient for me to donate. I got sick of having to take a few hours off and drive an hour away just to donate so gave up. At least I won’t have to jump through hoops when I’m dead. Cut me up and share it out. Around 6 % of the population have the most sort after blood group and I agree they don't make it easy for you to donate .." If they want it I would happily let them come and take it from me at home but I guess that’s not cost effective. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only one person has the rite to bodily parts ,and that’s those born with them,they are not public property to be hacked at at there wish ,fine organ donation but opt in not out so wrong " The state has helped itself to your body parts in the past. Alder Hey perhaps the most recent scandal. Followed by the nuclear industry and the removal of organs for radiological testing, without the knowledge or consent of the next of kin. Perhaps the worst scandal occurred in the 1950s and 1960s, when babies were mutilated in hospitals across the country to provide specimens for Cold War scientists measuring the uptake of radiological fall-out. The results were compared with similarly sickening work carried out in Australia. I do believe the law is considerably tighter now than it used to be. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Looks like the law in England could change ...opting OUT of organ donation instead of opting in ... what's everyone think about it...
We already do it in wales
And it makes fuck all difference
To what?
To the number of organs. We live in a society where with regard to healthcare the wishes of a family carry more weight than the actual law.
I didn't know that ...so basically a family member could refuse even though the dead person would wish their organs to be used?..
You’re the hospital. Some guy said yes to organ donation but he is dead now. The family say no, what are you going to do?
I wonder how many times that has happened?..be interesting to know more about it
Interesting emoji choice
Reality is family's who know the the wishes of their loved ones very rarely object. That's why this law is so important. The main issue with numbers donating is the limited clinical circumstances where donation is possible "A change in the law will make practically no difference without a change in attitude from society. In particular from the subsections of society which have famously low rates of approving donation. Everyone knows who they are but are too afraid to mention them (yes, including me) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
It is the best thing I did this year in opting in | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"should be made mandatory, if you want nhs treatment for free, if you die no matter what they should be allowed to remove anything they need. no matter what, if you opt out then your removed from the nhs." Not with the amount of tax I pay thank you xx | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Terrible idea. What ever happened to people having the right to choose. Before the riot ensues I am on the donor register, my choice, but don't believe anyone should have choices like this removed from them." It's not you that chooses though, it's your next of kin. Even if you are on the register, they can overturn it and refuse your organ donation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Terrible idea. What ever happened to people having the right to choose. Before the riot ensues I am on the donor register, my choice, but don't believe anyone should have choices like this removed from them. They do have the right to choose, they opt out of the scheme if they choose to. Its a passive appropriation of personal rights by the state who know that most won't opt out and therefore an assumption by the state of control over a person's body. That's why it's an opt out, because they know most won't. I don't want the state to have that much control over my body during life or after. I don't belong to the state like some chattel. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" That’s not true, I’m sure you’re joking but just in case some people believe it. No, I wasn't joking. A policeman told me that, based on his experience of call-outs to sudden deaths. Google also shows up some evidence. " Well he was winding you up, it doesn’t happen. It would have to be done immediately after death because that’s when the body releases. I too attend sudden deaths and I assure you it doesn’t happen. On average, by the time the police/ambo get there, do their work and then request the undertaker the body has been there a good few hours, and that’s assuming they were discovered quickly. Most go days, weeks or even months before they are found. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Terrible idea. What ever happened to people having the right to choose. Before the riot ensues I am on the donor register, my choice, but don't believe anyone should have choices like this removed from them. They do have the right to choose, they opt out of the scheme if they choose to. Its a passive appropriation of personal rights by the state who know that most won't opt out and therefore an assumption by the state of control over a person's body. That's why it's an opt out, because they know most won't. I don't want the state to have that much control over my body during life or after. I don't belong to the state like some chattel. " Your body belongs to the state the moment you die, it is then released back to any living relatives once all the formalities have been done. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When I die, they can take what they want from my body, and just throw the carcass away. I've made close people aware of my wishes. And I'm on the donor register abd carry the card. You do know that they won’t just discard your carcass don’t you. It has to be disposed of correctly, either buried or cremated. " Figure of speech really. Don't want all the formal funeral stuff. Cheap n cheerful for me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When I die, they can take what they want from my body, and just throw the carcass away. I've made close people aware of my wishes. And I'm on the donor register abd carry the card. First thing they'll do is insert a butt plug in your ass (a dead body soon wants to defecate). You don't need to be gay, just dead. An extra reason for the homophobes to dread the day "Another thing to look forward too  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The state are trying to gain more and more control over us. Our bodies belong to us not the state. If someone decides to register to donate then that's their choice making everyone automatically on the donation register is wrong. This country is becoming a complete nanny state " That’s just nonsense, how hard is it really to just go online and opt out. I’d understand if there was no option to opt out, that would be different but the choice is still there. Like people have said, 80+ % of people agree with organ donation but a much smaller percentage register, it’s to solve the gap in agreeing to it and taking the time to register. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When I die, they can take what they want from my body, and just throw the carcass away. I've made close people aware of my wishes. And I'm on the donor register abd carry the card. " This !
All my close friends and family know I’m on the organ donation register and I also carry the card, take what’s needed help others in need
I think it’s a better idea to opt out rather than opt in. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More than 500 families in the UK have said no to organ donation taking place since 1 April 2010 despite knowing or being informed their relative was on the NHS Organ Donor Register and wanted to donate. These family refusals have resulted in an estimated 1,200 people missing out on a potentially life-saving transplant." So yes, the family can override you decision to donate your organs. The problem is, the doctors need to work really quickly to get the organs out (to keep them viable and easier to transplant). Telling a loved one "I'm sorry to tell you that x has died. Can we use their organs please?" Doesn't go down very well. The idea of this legislation is to spare the trauma of the request at a time the family is most upset. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The state are trying to gain more and more control over us. Our bodies belong to us not the state. If someone decides to register to donate then that's their choice making everyone automatically on the donation register is wrong. This country is becoming a complete nanny state That’s just nonsense, how hard is it really to just go online and opt out. I’d understand if there was no option to opt out, that would be different but the choice is still there. Like people have said, 80+ % of people agree with organ donation but a much smaller percentage register, it’s to solve the gap in agreeing to it and taking the time to register. " It's not nonsense it's a persons right to decide not the state if people want to register that's their choice. Making is automatic is taking that right away. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The state are trying to gain more and more control over us. Our bodies belong to us not the state. If someone decides to register to donate then that's their choice making everyone automatically on the donation register is wrong. This country is becoming a complete nanny state That’s just nonsense, how hard is it really to just go online and opt out. I’d understand if there was no option to opt out, that would be different but the choice is still there. Like people have said, 80+ % of people agree with organ donation but a much smaller percentage register, it’s to solve the gap in agreeing to it and taking the time to register. It's not nonsense it's a persons right to decide not the state if people want to register that's their choice. Making is automatic is taking that right away. " They’re not removing the choice tho, it’s still there, the choice is to opt out or remain in rather than the other way round. Nobody is being forced into organ donation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The state are trying to gain more and more control over us. Our bodies belong to us not the state. If someone decides to register to donate then that's their choice making everyone automatically on the donation register is wrong. This country is becoming a complete nanny state That’s just nonsense, how hard is it really to just go online and opt out. I’d understand if there was no option to opt out, that would be different but the choice is still there. Like people have said, 80+ % of people agree with organ donation but a much smaller percentage register, it’s to solve the gap in agreeing to it and taking the time to register. It's not nonsense it's a persons right to decide not the state if people want to register that's their choice. Making is automatic is taking that right away. They’re not removing the choice tho, it’s still there, the choice is to opt out or remain in rather than the other way round. Nobody is being forced into organ donation. " The assumption by the state that people want to donate is wrong if people want to they opt in. Say someone dies as the new rules come in and they don't have the opportunity to opt out then what happens the state takes their organs on an assumption | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The state are trying to gain more and more control over us. Our bodies belong to us not the state. If someone decides to register to donate then that's their choice making everyone automatically on the donation register is wrong. This country is becoming a complete nanny state That’s just nonsense, how hard is it really to just go online and opt out. I’d understand if there was no option to opt out, that would be different but the choice is still there. Like people have said, 80+ % of people agree with organ donation but a much smaller percentage register, it’s to solve the gap in agreeing to it and taking the time to register. It's not nonsense it's a persons right to decide not the state if people want to register that's their choice. Making is automatic is taking that right away. They’re not removing the choice tho, it’s still there, the choice is to opt out or remain in rather than the other way round. Nobody is being forced into organ donation. The assumption by the state that people want to donate is wrong if people want to they opt in. Say someone dies as the new rules come in and they don't have the opportunity to opt out then what happens the state takes their organs on an assumption " Then some lives will be saved and the dead person will be none the wiser. But as others have said, families can still over rule the decision. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The state are trying to gain more and more control over us. Our bodies belong to us not the state. If someone decides to register to donate then that's their choice making everyone automatically on the donation register is wrong. This country is becoming a complete nanny state " Completely disagree. Most stuff cited as a “nanny state” doesn’t even make sense. If the idea of a “nanny state” is that the government meddles too much in our lives to somehow mollycoddle and protect us from ourselves, how is this symptomatic of that? I would argue that the potential to save many lives far outweighs the inconvenience of having to sign a bit of paper to opt out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The state are trying to gain more and more control over us. Our bodies belong to us not the state. If someone decides to register to donate then that's their choice making everyone automatically on the donation register is wrong. This country is becoming a complete nanny state That’s just nonsense, how hard is it really to just go online and opt out. I’d understand if there was no option to opt out, that would be different but the choice is still there. Like people have said, 80+ % of people agree with organ donation but a much smaller percentage register, it’s to solve the gap in agreeing to it and taking the time to register. It's not nonsense it's a persons right to decide not the state if people want to register that's their choice. Making is automatic is taking that right away. " No it isn’t. If they have the right to opt out, how exactly have they lost the right to decide? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The state are trying to gain more and more control over us. Our bodies belong to us not the state. If someone decides to register to donate then that's their choice making everyone automatically on the donation register is wrong. This country is becoming a complete nanny state That’s just nonsense, how hard is it really to just go online and opt out. I’d understand if there was no option to opt out, that would be different but the choice is still there. Like people have said, 80+ % of people agree with organ donation but a much smaller percentage register, it’s to solve the gap in agreeing to it and taking the time to register. It's not nonsense it's a persons right to decide not the state if people want to register that's their choice. Making is automatic is taking that right away. They’re not removing the choice tho, it’s still there, the choice is to opt out or remain in rather than the other way round. Nobody is being forced into organ donation. The assumption by the state that people want to donate is wrong if people want to they opt in. Say someone dies as the new rules come in and they don't have the opportunity to opt out then what happens the state takes their organs on an assumption " Ignoring the fact that the family could object, or that lives would be saved, and you are citing a specific example involving cases just as the law would change.... It seems reasonable to think that there would be a big campaign to promote the change, before the change came into effect. It’s very unlikely that the law would change, and then people could opt out. It seems far more likely that people would be given a period of a few months, during a big publicity campaign, to opt out prior to the law actually changing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s also nothing to do with a nanny state. Or to do with saving lives. Organ donation is financially driven. " It's exactly to do with helping to save lives. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s also nothing to do with a nanny state. Or to do with saving lives. Organ donation is financially driven. " I suppose the government steals them from the dead and then sells them on to the NHS eh  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The state are trying to gain more and more control over us. Our bodies belong to us not the state. If someone decides to register to donate then that's their choice making everyone automatically on the donation register is wrong. This country is becoming a complete nanny state That’s just nonsense, how hard is it really to just go online and opt out. I’d understand if there was no option to opt out, that would be different but the choice is still there. Like people have said, 80+ % of people agree with organ donation but a much smaller percentage register, it’s to solve the gap in agreeing to it and taking the time to register. It's not nonsense it's a persons right to decide not the state if people want to register that's their choice. Making is automatic is taking that right away. They’re not removing the choice tho, it’s still there, the choice is to opt out or remain in rather than the other way round. Nobody is being forced into organ donation. The assumption by the state that people want to donate is wrong if people want to they opt in. Say someone dies as the new rules come in and they don't have the opportunity to opt out then what happens the state takes their organs on an assumption Ignoring the fact that the family could object, or that lives would be saved, and you are citing a specific example involving cases just as the law would change.... It seems reasonable to think that there would be a big campaign to promote the change, before the change came into effect. It’s very unlikely that the law would change, and then people could opt out. It seems far more likely that people would be given a period of a few months, during a big publicity campaign, to opt out prior to the law actually changing." According to the BBC website: "If passed, it is expected to come into effect in England in spring 2020 - because the timetable for its introduction will allow for a year of "transition" to the new law." ... "...the new system would involve a "soft opt-out", where families could override the presumption in favour of donation if they strongly believed their dead relative would not have wanted it." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s also nothing to do with a nanny state. Or to do with saving lives. Organ donation is financially driven. I suppose the government steals them from the dead and then sells them on to the NHS eh "It's more to do with the fact that it costs a lot of money to look after someone waiting for an organ. A person that has received an organ and been discharged from hospital will cost less and that is a consideration. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Looks like the law in England could change ...opting OUT of organ donation instead of opting in ... what's everyone think about it... "This this is a much better idea. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s also nothing to do with a nanny state. Or to do with saving lives. Organ donation is financially driven. " Can you back that up at all? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It’s very unlikely that the law would change, and then people could opt out. It seems far more likely that people would be given a period of a few months, during a big publicity campaign, to opt out prior to the law actually changing." It seems fairly simple to me. At the moment, I need to register and carry a card declaring my agreement to donate anything of me still of use. In future, I won't. If I do not want any of me to be used like that, I will need to register (and presumably carry a card, too.) The onus will be on the health professionals to check the register before recycling any spare parts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The state are trying to gain more and more control over us. Our bodies belong to us not the state. If someone decides to register to donate then that's their choice making everyone automatically on the donation register is wrong. This country is becoming a complete nanny state That’s just nonsense, how hard is it really to just go online and opt out. I’d understand if there was no option to opt out, that would be different but the choice is still there. Like people have said, 80+ % of people agree with organ donation but a much smaller percentage register, it’s to solve the gap in agreeing to it and taking the time to register. It's not nonsense it's a persons right to decide not the state if people want to register that's their choice. Making is automatic is taking that right away. They’re not removing the choice tho, it’s still there, the choice is to opt out or remain in rather than the other way round. Nobody is being forced into organ donation. The assumption by the state that people want to donate is wrong if people want to they opt in. Say someone dies as the new rules come in and they don't have the opportunity to opt out then what happens the state takes their organs on an assumption Then some lives will be saved and the dead person will be none the wiser. But as others have said, families can still over rule the decision." Therefore taking organs with out consent from the descesed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"currently opted in, but know body has a god given right to your remains so as soon as they chage things I will opt out on pinciple" Well then you won’t be spiting the government you will potentially be signing some kids death warrant by denying them the chance of life. Just so your organs can rot in the ground or get turned to ash along with the rest of you. Giving the gift of life after your death is a really good thing and your family would have comfort knowing that a part or parts of you live on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The state are trying to gain more and more control over us. Our bodies belong to us not the state. If someone decides to register to donate then that's their choice making everyone automatically on the donation register is wrong. This country is becoming a complete nanny state That’s just nonsense, how hard is it really to just go online and opt out. I’d understand if there was no option to opt out, that would be different but the choice is still there. Like people have said, 80+ % of people agree with organ donation but a much smaller percentage register, it’s to solve the gap in agreeing to it and taking the time to register. It's not nonsense it's a persons right to decide not the state if people want to register that's their choice. Making is automatic is taking that right away. They’re not removing the choice tho, it’s still there, the choice is to opt out or remain in rather than the other way round. Nobody is being forced into organ donation. The assumption by the state that people want to donate is wrong if people want to they opt in. Say someone dies as the new rules come in and they don't have the opportunity to opt out then what happens the state takes their organs on an assumption Then some lives will be saved and the dead person will be none the wiser. But as others have said, families can still over rule the decision. Therefore taking organs with out consent from the descesed." No, the families would either give consent or not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The state are trying to gain more and more control over us. Our bodies belong to us not the state. If someone decides to register to donate then that's their choice making everyone automatically on the donation register is wrong. This country is becoming a complete nanny state That’s just nonsense, how hard is it really to just go online and opt out. I’d understand if there was no option to opt out, that would be different but the choice is still there. Like people have said, 80+ % of people agree with organ donation but a much smaller percentage register, it’s to solve the gap in agreeing to it and taking the time to register. It's not nonsense it's a persons right to decide not the state if people want to register that's their choice. Making is automatic is taking that right away. They’re not removing the choice tho, it’s still there, the choice is to opt out or remain in rather than the other way round. Nobody is being forced into organ donation. The assumption by the state that people want to donate is wrong if people want to they opt in. Say someone dies as the new rules come in and they don't have the opportunity to opt out then what happens the state takes their organs on an assumption Ignoring the fact that the family could object, or that lives would be saved, and you are citing a specific example involving cases just as the law would change.... It seems reasonable to think that there would be a big campaign to promote the change, before the change came into effect. It’s very unlikely that the law would change, and then people could opt out. It seems far more likely that people would be given a period of a few months, during a big publicity campaign, to opt out prior to the law actually changing." Still what gives the state the right to assume that people want to give their organs an opt in system is a lot better | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No one is questioning that organ donation is something that is needed . The process by which organs are obtained is a difficult one . None of this is in question. The problem I have with such a huge change in the law is the inference that the state can and will use the power to override the most basic and sacred human right. I don’t believe the starting point should be “the state will have your organs unless you tell us otherwise” More work and a better process should be devised to deal with organ donation. I don’t believe the proposed change in the law is right." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All that will happen is a family will be approached and asked if they will consent to harvesting based on the fact that they have never opted out. If the family don't consent that's it. This talk of the state having control of your body or suggesting that the state and the NHS are about to become body snatchers is complete bollocks." I concur, just a load of nonsense. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Given the government(s) data handling record I wouldn't trust them with managing a Christmas club never mind a database. Wasn't too long ago the nhs had cyber attacks that paralysed it for days .. The report I heard suggested it would be smart phone app... another app on my phone that'll do-nothing and want updating " Second that. Something will happen a data breach or loss of files etc | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Terrible idea. What ever happened to people having the right to choose. Before the riot ensues I am on the donor register, my choice, but don't believe anyone should have choices like this removed from them." You do have a choice. To opt out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The state are trying to gain more and more control over us. Our bodies belong to us not the state. If someone decides to register to donate then that's their choice making everyone automatically on the donation register is wrong. This country is becoming a complete nanny state That’s just nonsense, how hard is it really to just go online and opt out. I’d understand if there was no option to opt out, that would be different but the choice is still there. Like people have said, 80+ % of people agree with organ donation but a much smaller percentage register, it’s to solve the gap in agreeing to it and taking the time to register. It's not nonsense it's a persons right to decide not the state if people want to register that's their choice. Making is automatic is taking that right away. They’re not removing the choice tho, it’s still there, the choice is to opt out or remain in rather than the other way round. Nobody is being forced into organ donation. The assumption by the state that people want to donate is wrong if people want to they opt in. Say someone dies as the new rules come in and they don't have the opportunity to opt out then what happens the state takes their organs on an assumption Then some lives will be saved and the dead person will be none the wiser. But as others have said, families can still over rule the decision. Therefore taking organs with out consent from the descesed. No, the families would either give consent or not." Shouldn't be the families choice it's the person who the body belongs to that should decide | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The state are trying to gain more and more control over us. Our bodies belong to us not the state. If someone decides to register to donate then that's their choice making everyone automatically on the donation register is wrong. This country is becoming a complete nanny state That’s just nonsense, how hard is it really to just go online and opt out. I’d understand if there was no option to opt out, that would be different but the choice is still there. Like people have said, 80+ % of people agree with organ donation but a much smaller percentage register, it’s to solve the gap in agreeing to it and taking the time to register. It's not nonsense it's a persons right to decide not the state if people want to register that's their choice. Making is automatic is taking that right away. They’re not removing the choice tho, it’s still there, the choice is to opt out or remain in rather than the other way round. Nobody is being forced into organ donation. The assumption by the state that people want to donate is wrong if people want to they opt in. Say someone dies as the new rules come in and they don't have the opportunity to opt out then what happens the state takes their organs on an assumption Then some lives will be saved and the dead person will be none the wiser. But as others have said, families can still over rule the decision. Therefore taking organs with out consent from the descesed. No, the families would either give consent or not. Shouldn't be the families choice it's the person who the body belongs to that should decide " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Some people genuinely angry about something that happens after they die, which would help save lives. Mental." It’s not mental. Otherwise why respect ANY wish by a dying person, especially how they are buried. You wouldn’t just cremate a family memeber who for example wanted to buried next to a loved one, they’re dead after all, what do they know.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The state are trying to gain more and more control over us. Our bodies belong to us not the state. If someone decides to register to donate then that's their choice making everyone automatically on the donation register is wrong. This country is becoming a complete nanny state That’s just nonsense, how hard is it really to just go online and opt out. I’d understand if there was no option to opt out, that would be different but the choice is still there. Like people have said, 80+ % of people agree with organ donation but a much smaller percentage register, it’s to solve the gap in agreeing to it and taking the time to register. It's not nonsense it's a persons right to decide not the state if people want to register that's their choice. Making is automatic is taking that right away. They’re not removing the choice tho, it’s still there, the choice is to opt out or remain in rather than the other way round. Nobody is being forced into organ donation. The assumption by the state that people want to donate is wrong if people want to they opt in. Say someone dies as the new rules come in and they don't have the opportunity to opt out then what happens the state takes their organs on an assumption Ignoring the fact that the family could object, or that lives would be saved, and you are citing a specific example involving cases just as the law would change.... It seems reasonable to think that there would be a big campaign to promote the change, before the change came into effect. It’s very unlikely that the law would change, and then people could opt out. It seems far more likely that people would be given a period of a few months, during a big publicity campaign, to opt out prior to the law actually changing. Still what gives the state the right to assume that people want to give their organs an opt in system is a lot better " Because the current system obviously isn't working. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Some people genuinely angry about something that happens after they die, which would help save lives. Mental. It’s not mental. Otherwise why respect ANY wish by a dying person, especially how they are buried. You wouldn’t just cremate a family memeber who for example wanted to buried next to a loved one, they’re dead after all, what do they know.. " Why WOULDN'T you want to donate your organs? Being cremated or buried doesn't affect any lives so it's a flawed analogy. It's moot anyway, people literally still have the choice to be selfish and deny dying kids a new pancreas if they want. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The state are trying to gain more and more control over us. Our bodies belong to us not the state. If someone decides to register to donate then that's their choice making everyone automatically on the donation register is wrong. This country is becoming a complete nanny state That’s just nonsense, how hard is it really to just go online and opt out. I’d understand if there was no option to opt out, that would be different but the choice is still there. Like people have said, 80+ % of people agree with organ donation but a much smaller percentage register, it’s to solve the gap in agreeing to it and taking the time to register. It's not nonsense it's a persons right to decide not the state if people want to register that's their choice. Making is automatic is taking that right away. They’re not removing the choice tho, it’s still there, the choice is to opt out or remain in rather than the other way round. Nobody is being forced into organ donation. The assumption by the state that people want to donate is wrong if people want to they opt in. Say someone dies as the new rules come in and they don't have the opportunity to opt out then what happens the state takes their organs on an assumption Then some lives will be saved and the dead person will be none the wiser. But as others have said, families can still over rule the decision. Therefore taking organs with out consent from the descesed. No, the families would either give consent or not. Shouldn't be the families choice it's the person who the body belongs to that should decide "They are dead. How are they meant to consent? At the moment it is my families decision if my organs get used or not, not mine. Even though I'm on the register. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The state are trying to gain more and more control over us. Our bodies belong to us not the state. If someone decides to register to donate then that's their choice making everyone automatically on the donation register is wrong. This country is becoming a complete nanny state That’s just nonsense, how hard is it really to just go online and opt out. I’d understand if there was no option to opt out, that would be different but the choice is still there. Like people have said, 80+ % of people agree with organ donation but a much smaller percentage register, it’s to solve the gap in agreeing to it and taking the time to register. It's not nonsense it's a persons right to decide not the state if people want to register that's their choice. Making is automatic is taking that right away. They’re not removing the choice tho, it’s still there, the choice is to opt out or remain in rather than the other way round. Nobody is being forced into organ donation. The assumption by the state that people want to donate is wrong if people want to they opt in. Say someone dies as the new rules come in and they don't have the opportunity to opt out then what happens the state takes their organs on an assumption Ignoring the fact that the family could object, or that lives would be saved, and you are citing a specific example involving cases just as the law would change.... It seems reasonable to think that there would be a big campaign to promote the change, before the change came into effect. It’s very unlikely that the law would change, and then people could opt out. It seems far more likely that people would be given a period of a few months, during a big publicity campaign, to opt out prior to the law actually changing. Still what gives the state the right to assume that people want to give their organs an opt in system is a lot better Because the current system obviously isn't working." The current system may not be working but that doesn't give the state the right. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When you die most people go through a post mortem. I’ve watched them happen for evidential reasons and all your organs are taken out, including your brain, tongue, all internal organs, they are measured and weighed and sliced up to be examined to find the cause of death. Once done, they are all put in a yellow bio hazard plastic bag and stuffed into your body cavity. Your skull and throat cavities are stuffed with cotton wool to pad them out. My point is, you get cut up and messed with regardless and your organs stuffed in a bag. You might as well let some unfortunate person make use of them. " If your body goes through a post mortem, your organs can't be used for donation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The state are trying to gain more and more control over us. Our bodies belong to us not the state. If someone decides to register to donate then that's their choice making everyone automatically on the donation register is wrong. This country is becoming a complete nanny state That’s just nonsense, how hard is it really to just go online and opt out. I’d understand if there was no option to opt out, that would be different but the choice is still there. Like people have said, 80+ % of people agree with organ donation but a much smaller percentage register, it’s to solve the gap in agreeing to it and taking the time to register. It's not nonsense it's a persons right to decide not the state if people want to register that's their choice. Making is automatic is taking that right away. They’re not removing the choice tho, it’s still there, the choice is to opt out or remain in rather than the other way round. Nobody is being forced into organ donation. The assumption by the state that people want to donate is wrong if people want to they opt in. Say someone dies as the new rules come in and they don't have the opportunity to opt out then what happens the state takes their organs on an assumption Ignoring the fact that the family could object, or that lives would be saved, and you are citing a specific example involving cases just as the law would change.... It seems reasonable to think that there would be a big campaign to promote the change, before the change came into effect. It’s very unlikely that the law would change, and then people could opt out. It seems far more likely that people would be given a period of a few months, during a big publicity campaign, to opt out prior to the law actually changing. Still what gives the state the right to assume that people want to give their organs an opt in system is a lot better Because the current system obviously isn't working. The current system may not be working but that doesn't give the state the right. " What is your bright idea then? You can't agree that it's not working and not put another idea forward. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The state are trying to gain more and more control over us. Our bodies belong to us not the state. If someone decides to register to donate then that's their choice making everyone automatically on the donation register is wrong. This country is becoming a complete nanny state That’s just nonsense, how hard is it really to just go online and opt out. I’d understand if there was no option to opt out, that would be different but the choice is still there. Like people have said, 80+ % of people agree with organ donation but a much smaller percentage register, it’s to solve the gap in agreeing to it and taking the time to register. It's not nonsense it's a persons right to decide not the state if people want to register that's their choice. Making is automatic is taking that right away. They’re not removing the choice tho, it’s still there, the choice is to opt out or remain in rather than the other way round. Nobody is being forced into organ donation. The assumption by the state that people want to donate is wrong if people want to they opt in. Say someone dies as the new rules come in and they don't have the opportunity to opt out then what happens the state takes their organs on an assumption Ignoring the fact that the family could object, or that lives would be saved, and you are citing a specific example involving cases just as the law would change.... It seems reasonable to think that there would be a big campaign to promote the change, before the change came into effect. It’s very unlikely that the law would change, and then people could opt out. It seems far more likely that people would be given a period of a few months, during a big publicity campaign, to opt out prior to the law actually changing. Still what gives the state the right to assume that people want to give their organs an opt in system is a lot better Because the current system obviously isn't working. The current system may not be working but that doesn't give the state the right. " The state have no right though! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The state are trying to gain more and more control over us. Our bodies belong to us not the state. If someone decides to register to donate then that's their choice making everyone automatically on the donation register is wrong. This country is becoming a complete nanny state That’s just nonsense, how hard is it really to just go online and opt out. I’d understand if there was no option to opt out, that would be different but the choice is still there. Like people have said, 80+ % of people agree with organ donation but a much smaller percentage register, it’s to solve the gap in agreeing to it and taking the time to register. It's not nonsense it's a persons right to decide not the state if people want to register that's their choice. Making is automatic is taking that right away. They’re not removing the choice tho, it’s still there, the choice is to opt out or remain in rather than the other way round. Nobody is being forced into organ donation. The assumption by the state that people want to donate is wrong if people want to they opt in. Say someone dies as the new rules come in and they don't have the opportunity to opt out then what happens the state takes their organs on an assumption Ignoring the fact that the family could object, or that lives would be saved, and you are citing a specific example involving cases just as the law would change.... It seems reasonable to think that there would be a big campaign to promote the change, before the change came into effect. It’s very unlikely that the law would change, and then people could opt out. It seems far more likely that people would be given a period of a few months, during a big publicity campaign, to opt out prior to the law actually changing. Still what gives the state the right to assume that people want to give their organs an opt in system is a lot better Because the current system obviously isn't working. The current system may not be working but that doesn't give the state the right. The state have no right though!" The state has to step in to keep us from harming ourselves or harming others or allowing either. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When you die most people go through a post mortem. I’ve watched them happen for evidential reasons and all your organs are taken out, including your brain, tongue, all internal organs, they are measured and weighed and sliced up to be examined to find the cause of death. Once done, they are all put in a yellow bio hazard plastic bag and stuffed into your body cavity. Your skull and throat cavities are stuffed with cotton wool to pad them out. My point is, you get cut up and messed with regardless and your organs stuffed in a bag. You might as well let some unfortunate person make use of them. " There's a reason most people that know what post mortem involve don't talk about it...
Also most is a massive exaggeration. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When you die most people go through a post mortem. I’ve watched them happen for evidential reasons and all your organs are taken out, including your brain, tongue, all internal organs, they are measured and weighed and sliced up to be examined to find the cause of death. Once done, they are all put in a yellow bio hazard plastic bag and stuffed into your body cavity. Your skull and throat cavities are stuffed with cotton wool to pad them out. My point is, you get cut up and messed with regardless and your organs stuffed in a bag. You might as well let some unfortunate person make use of them. If your body goes through a post mortem, your organs can't be used for donation." They would be taken very soon after death obviously. Post Mortems get done several days after death. My point being that if your getting cut up and messed about with then you might as well donate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The state are trying to gain more and more control over us. Our bodies belong to us not the state. If someone decides to register to donate then that's their choice making everyone automatically on the donation register is wrong. This country is becoming a complete nanny state That’s just nonsense, how hard is it really to just go online and opt out. I’d understand if there was no option to opt out, that would be different but the choice is still there. Like people have said, 80+ % of people agree with organ donation but a much smaller percentage register, it’s to solve the gap in agreeing to it and taking the time to register. It's not nonsense it's a persons right to decide not the state if people want to register that's their choice. Making is automatic is taking that right away. They’re not removing the choice tho, it’s still there, the choice is to opt out or remain in rather than the other way round. Nobody is being forced into organ donation. The assumption by the state that people want to donate is wrong if people want to they opt in. Say someone dies as the new rules come in and they don't have the opportunity to opt out then what happens the state takes their organs on an assumption Ignoring the fact that the family could object, or that lives would be saved, and you are citing a specific example involving cases just as the law would change.... It seems reasonable to think that there would be a big campaign to promote the change, before the change came into effect. It’s very unlikely that the law would change, and then people could opt out. It seems far more likely that people would be given a period of a few months, during a big publicity campaign, to opt out prior to the law actually changing. Still what gives the state the right to assume that people want to give their organs an opt in system is a lot better Because the current system obviously isn't working. The current system may not be working but that doesn't give the state the right. What is your bright idea then? You can't agree that it's not working and not put another idea forward." It's not working no but that doesn't give the state the right. It's not my job or anyone else job to come up with solutions that's for the people who we have elected to do but assuming is not the answer | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When you die most people go through a post mortem. I’ve watched them happen for evidential reasons and all your organs are taken out, including your brain, tongue, all internal organs, they are measured and weighed and sliced up to be examined to find the cause of death. Once done, they are all put in a yellow bio hazard plastic bag and stuffed into your body cavity. Your skull and throat cavities are stuffed with cotton wool to pad them out. My point is, you get cut up and messed with regardless and your organs stuffed in a bag. You might as well let some unfortunate person make use of them. There's a reason most people that know what post mortem involve don't talk about it...
Also most is a massive exaggeration. "None of what I said is exaggerated. I’ve observed quite a few. I’m aware ignorance is bliss but if people know the truth then maybe they wouldn’t be so put off about being cut up to give organs. It’s going to happen anyway. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When you die most people go through a post mortem. I’ve watched them happen for evidential reasons and all your organs are taken out, including your brain, tongue, all internal organs, they are measured and weighed and sliced up to be examined to find the cause of death. Once done, they are all put in a yellow bio hazard plastic bag and stuffed into your body cavity. Your skull and throat cavities are stuffed with cotton wool to pad them out. My point is, you get cut up and messed with regardless and your organs stuffed in a bag. You might as well let some unfortunate person make use of them. If your body goes through a post mortem, your organs can't be used for donation. They would be taken very soon after death obviously. Post Mortems get done several days after death. My point being that if your getting cut up and messed about with then you might as well donate. " They can't be taken for organ donation if you are due to have a post mortem. The reason for your death might be due to a faulty organ, or a toxin that's in your blood supply (so therefore all your organs). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The state are trying to gain more and more control over us. Our bodies belong to us not the state. If someone decides to register to donate then that's their choice making everyone automatically on the donation register is wrong. This country is becoming a complete nanny state That’s just nonsense, how hard is it really to just go online and opt out. I’d understand if there was no option to opt out, that would be different but the choice is still there. Like people have said, 80+ % of people agree with organ donation but a much smaller percentage register, it’s to solve the gap in agreeing to it and taking the time to register. It's not nonsense it's a persons right to decide not the state if people want to register that's their choice. Making is automatic is taking that right away. They’re not removing the choice tho, it’s still there, the choice is to opt out or remain in rather than the other way round. Nobody is being forced into organ donation. The assumption by the state that people want to donate is wrong if people want to they opt in. Say someone dies as the new rules come in and they don't have the opportunity to opt out then what happens the state takes their organs on an assumption Ignoring the fact that the family could object, or that lives would be saved, and you are citing a specific example involving cases just as the law would change.... It seems reasonable to think that there would be a big campaign to promote the change, before the change came into effect. It’s very unlikely that the law would change, and then people could opt out. It seems far more likely that people would be given a period of a few months, during a big publicity campaign, to opt out prior to the law actually changing. Still what gives the state the right to assume that people want to give their organs an opt in system is a lot better Because the current system obviously isn't working. The current system may not be working but that doesn't give the state the right. What is your bright idea then? You can't agree that it's not working and not put another idea forward. It's not working no but that doesn't give the state the right. It's not my job or anyone else job to come up with solutions that's for the people who we have elected to do but assuming is not the answer " This is a debate on a forum. You cannot rubbish an idea without putting another one forward. That's not how a debate works. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When you die most people go through a post mortem. I’ve watched them happen for evidential reasons and all your organs are taken out, including your brain, tongue, all internal organs, they are measured and weighed and sliced up to be examined to find the cause of death. Once done, they are all put in a yellow bio hazard plastic bag and stuffed into your body cavity. Your skull and throat cavities are stuffed with cotton wool to pad them out. My point is, you get cut up and messed with regardless and your organs stuffed in a bag. You might as well let some unfortunate person make use of them. There's a reason most people that know what post mortem involve don't talk about it...
Also most is a massive exaggeration.
None of what I said is exaggerated. I’ve observed quite a few. I’m aware ignorance is bliss but if people know the truth then maybe they wouldn’t be so put off about being cut up to give organs. It’s going to happen anyway."I think he means your comment that most people have post mortems. He's saying that most is a massive exaggeration. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When you die most people go through a post mortem. I’ve watched them happen for evidential reasons and all your organs are taken out, including your brain, tongue, all internal organs, they are measured and weighed and sliced up to be examined to find the cause of death. Once done, they are all put in a yellow bio hazard plastic bag and stuffed into your body cavity. Your skull and throat cavities are stuffed with cotton wool to pad them out. My point is, you get cut up and messed with regardless and your organs stuffed in a bag. You might as well let some unfortunate person make use of them. If your body goes through a post mortem, your organs can't be used for donation. They would be taken very soon after death obviously. Post Mortems get done several days after death. My point being that if your getting cut up and messed about with then you might as well donate. They can't be taken for organ donation if you are due to have a post mortem. The reason for your death might be due to a faulty organ, or a toxin that's in your blood supply (so therefore all your organs)." By that logic no organs would be fit for donation because the post mortem determines the cause of death. Not everybody has one of course. If a doctor is happy to sign a death certificate saying the death was natural causes then no PM is required. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When you die most people go through a post mortem. I’ve watched them happen for evidential reasons and all your organs are taken out, including your brain, tongue, all internal organs, they are measured and weighed and sliced up to be examined to find the cause of death. Once done, they are all put in a yellow bio hazard plastic bag and stuffed into your body cavity. Your skull and throat cavities are stuffed with cotton wool to pad them out. My point is, you get cut up and messed with regardless and your organs stuffed in a bag. You might as well let some unfortunate person make use of them. There's a reason most people that know what post mortem involve don't talk about it...
Also most is a massive exaggeration.
None of what I said is exaggerated. I’ve observed quite a few. I’m aware ignorance is bliss but if people know the truth then maybe they wouldn’t be so put off about being cut up to give organs. It’s going to happen anyway.
I think he means your comment that most people have post mortems. He's saying that most is a massive exaggeration."Ahh, yeah I see that now. The only time no PM is required is as above | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When you die most people go through a post mortem. I’ve watched them happen for evidential reasons and all your organs are taken out, including your brain, tongue, all internal organs, they are measured and weighed and sliced up to be examined to find the cause of death. Once done, they are all put in a yellow bio hazard plastic bag and stuffed into your body cavity. Your skull and throat cavities are stuffed with cotton wool to pad them out. My point is, you get cut up and messed with regardless and your organs stuffed in a bag. You might as well let some unfortunate person make use of them. If your body goes through a post mortem, your organs can't be used for donation. They would be taken very soon after death obviously. Post Mortems get done several days after death. My point being that if your getting cut up and messed about with then you might as well donate. They can't be taken for organ donation if you are due to have a post mortem. The reason for your death might be due to a faulty organ, or a toxin that's in your blood supply (so therefore all your organs). By that logic no organs would be fit for donation because the post mortem determines the cause of death. Not everybody has one of course. If a doctor is happy to sign a death certificate saying the death was natural causes then no PM is required. " Hence the short supply of viable organs which has caused this potential change in law! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When you die most people go through a post mortem. I’ve watched them happen for evidential reasons and all your organs are taken out, including your brain, tongue, all internal organs, they are measured and weighed and sliced up to be examined to find the cause of death. Once done, they are all put in a yellow bio hazard plastic bag and stuffed into your body cavity. Your skull and throat cavities are stuffed with cotton wool to pad them out. My point is, you get cut up and messed with regardless and your organs stuffed in a bag. You might as well let some unfortunate person make use of them. There's a reason most people that know what post mortem involve don't talk about it...
Also most is a massive exaggeration.
None of what I said is exaggerated. I’ve observed quite a few. I’m aware ignorance is bliss but if people know the truth then maybe they wouldn’t be so put off about being cut up to give organs. It’s going to happen anyway."Most people who die do not have a post mortem. That's a fact. Most deaths don't get refered to the coroner and most of those that do don't need a post mortem. Even allowing for the relatively small number of hospital post mortems and forensic post mortems I'd guess about 15-20 percent max of all deaths have a post mortem and that's nowhere near "most" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The state are trying to gain more and more control over us. Our bodies belong to us not the state. If someone decides to register to donate then that's their choice making everyone automatically on the donation register is wrong. This country is becoming a complete nanny state That’s just nonsense, how hard is it really to just go online and opt out. I’d understand if there was no option to opt out, that would be different but the choice is still there. Like people have said, 80+ % of people agree with organ donation but a much smaller percentage register, it’s to solve the gap in agreeing to it and taking the time to register. It's not nonsense it's a persons right to decide not the state if people want to register that's their choice. Making is automatic is taking that right away. They’re not removing the choice tho, it’s still there, the choice is to opt out or remain in rather than the other way round. Nobody is being forced into organ donation. The assumption by the state that people want to donate is wrong if people want to they opt in. Say someone dies as the new rules come in and they don't have the opportunity to opt out then what happens the state takes their organs on an assumption Ignoring the fact that the family could object, or that lives would be saved, and you are citing a specific example involving cases just as the law would change.... It seems reasonable to think that there would be a big campaign to promote the change, before the change came into effect. It’s very unlikely that the law would change, and then people could opt out. It seems far more likely that people would be given a period of a few months, during a big publicity campaign, to opt out prior to the law actually changing. Still what gives the state the right to assume that people want to give their organs an opt in system is a lot better Because the current system obviously isn't working. The current system may not be working but that doesn't give the state the right. What is your bright idea then? You can't agree that it's not working and not put another idea forward. It's not working no but that doesn't give the state the right. It's not my job or anyone else job to come up with solutions that's for the people who we have elected to do but assuming is not the answer This is a debate on a forum. You cannot rubbish an idea without putting another one forward. That's not how a debate works." The OP asked people's opinion that's what I've given the OP didn't ask for other solutions like I said that's for MPs to come up with but not assume | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When you die most people go through a post mortem. I’ve watched them happen for evidential reasons and all your organs are taken out, including your brain, tongue, all internal organs, they are measured and weighed and sliced up to be examined to find the cause of death. Once done, they are all put in a yellow bio hazard plastic bag and stuffed into your body cavity. Your skull and throat cavities are stuffed with cotton wool to pad them out. My point is, you get cut up and messed with regardless and your organs stuffed in a bag. You might as well let some unfortunate person make use of them. If your body goes through a post mortem, your organs can't be used for donation. They would be taken very soon after death obviously. Post Mortems get done several days after death. My point being that if your getting cut up and messed about with then you might as well donate. They can't be taken for organ donation if you are due to have a post mortem. The reason for your death might be due to a faulty organ, or a toxin that's in your blood supply (so therefore all your organs). By that logic no organs would be fit for donation because the post mortem determines the cause of death. Not everybody has one of course. If a doctor is happy to sign a death certificate saying the death was natural causes then no PM is required. " The real issue is that most people who die aren't suitable to donate. Usually you need a massive strike or trauma (like a broken neck or catastrophic head injury) that leaves the major organs fine but the soon to be donor needing a ventilator to survive. Whether that cause is natural or unnatural is a moot point as the cause is known so a death certificate can be issued. The coroner rarely refuses donation in an unnatural death (the needs of the living is more important) and even some forensic post mortems take place after harvesting | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The state are trying to gain more and more control over us. Our bodies belong to us not the state. If someone decides to register to donate then that's their choice making everyone automatically on the donation register is wrong. This country is becoming a complete nanny state That’s just nonsense, how hard is it really to just go online and opt out. I’d understand if there was no option to opt out, that would be different but the choice is still there. Like people have said, 80+ % of people agree with organ donation but a much smaller percentage register, it’s to solve the gap in agreeing to it and taking the time to register. It's not nonsense it's a persons right to decide not the state if people want to register that's their choice. Making is automatic is taking that right away. They’re not removing the choice tho, it’s still there, the choice is to opt out or remain in rather than the other way round. Nobody is being forced into organ donation. The assumption by the state that people want to donate is wrong if people want to they opt in. Say someone dies as the new rules come in and they don't have the opportunity to opt out then what happens the state takes their organs on an assumption Ignoring the fact that the family could object, or that lives would be saved, and you are citing a specific example involving cases just as the law would change.... It seems reasonable to think that there would be a big campaign to promote the change, before the change came into effect. It’s very unlikely that the law would change, and then people could opt out. It seems far more likely that people would be given a period of a few months, during a big publicity campaign, to opt out prior to the law actually changing. Still what gives the state the right to assume that people want to give their organs an opt in system is a lot better Because the current system obviously isn't working. The current system may not be working but that doesn't give the state the right. What is your bright idea then? You can't agree that it's not working and not put another idea forward. It's not working no but that doesn't give the state the right. It's not my job or anyone else job to come up with solutions that's for the people who we have elected to do but assuming is not the answer This is a debate on a forum. You cannot rubbish an idea without putting another one forward. That's not how a debate works. The OP asked people's opinion that's what I've given the OP didn't ask for other solutions like I said that's for MPs to come up with but not assume " So in other words you don't have any ideas of your own? You just wait for the government to do your thinking for you? But you complain about a nanny state? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When you die most people go through a post mortem. I’ve watched them happen for evidential reasons and all your organs are taken out, including your brain, tongue, all internal organs, they are measured and weighed and sliced up to be examined to find the cause of death. Once done, they are all put in a yellow bio hazard plastic bag and stuffed into your body cavity. Your skull and throat cavities are stuffed with cotton wool to pad them out. My point is, you get cut up and messed with regardless and your organs stuffed in a bag. You might as well let some unfortunate person make use of them. There's a reason most people that know what post mortem involve don't talk about it...
Also most is a massive exaggeration.
None of what I said is exaggerated. I’ve observed quite a few. I’m aware ignorance is bliss but if people know the truth then maybe they wouldn’t be so put off about being cut up to give organs. It’s going to happen anyway.
Most people who die do not have a post mortem. That's a fact. Most deaths don't get refered to the coroner and most of those that do don't need a post mortem. Even allowing for the relatively small number of hospital post mortems and forensic post mortems I'd guess about 15-20 percent max of all deaths have a post mortem and that's nowhere near "most""I don’t know the figure for PM’s but I do know that most deaths do get reported to the coroner. Only deaths were death was expected and their doctor has signed the death certificate are not referred. I was just making the point that if people knew what happened to their bodies after their death then they may not be so precious about donating organs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The state are trying to gain more and more control over us. Our bodies belong to us not the state. If someone decides to register to donate then that's their choice making everyone automatically on the donation register is wrong. This country is becoming a complete nanny state That’s just nonsense, how hard is it really to just go online and opt out. I’d understand if there was no option to opt out, that would be different but the choice is still there. Like people have said, 80+ % of people agree with organ donation but a much smaller percentage register, it’s to solve the gap in agreeing to it and taking the time to register. It's not nonsense it's a persons right to decide not the state if people want to register that's their choice. Making is automatic is taking that right away. They’re not removing the choice tho, it’s still there, the choice is to opt out or remain in rather than the other way round. Nobody is being forced into organ donation. The assumption by the state that people want to donate is wrong if people want to they opt in. Say someone dies as the new rules come in and they don't have the opportunity to opt out then what happens the state takes their organs on an assumption Ignoring the fact that the family could object, or that lives would be saved, and you are citing a specific example involving cases just as the law would change.... It seems reasonable to think that there would be a big campaign to promote the change, before the change came into effect. It’s very unlikely that the law would change, and then people could opt out. It seems far more likely that people would be given a period of a few months, during a big publicity campaign, to opt out prior to the law actually changing. Still what gives the state the right to assume that people want to give their organs an opt in system is a lot better Because the current system obviously isn't working. The current system may not be working but that doesn't give the state the right. What is your bright idea then? You can't agree that it's not working and not put another idea forward. It's not working no but that doesn't give the state the right. It's not my job or anyone else job to come up with solutions that's for the people who we have elected to do but assuming is not the answer This is a debate on a forum. You cannot rubbish an idea without putting another one forward. That's not how a debate works. The OP asked people's opinion that's what I've given the OP didn't ask for other solutions like I said that's for MPs to come up with but not assume So in other words you don't have any ideas of your own? You just wait for the government to do your thinking for you? But you complain about a nanny state? "They are eclected it's their job they diverse a solution then than is goes under scutany and things are re looked at. Our job as cizterns is to hold the government to account and make our voices heard. Not bow down to the government and roll over. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Some people genuinely angry about something that happens after they die, which would help save lives. Mental. It’s not mental. Otherwise why respect ANY wish by a dying person, especially how they are buried. You wouldn’t just cremate a family memeber who for example wanted to buried next to a loved one, they’re dead after all, what do they know.. Why WOULDN'T you want to donate your organs? Being cremated or buried doesn't affect any lives so it's a flawed analogy. It's moot anyway, people literally still have the choice to be selfish and deny dying kids a new pancreas if they want." It’s not a flawed analogy, the point was about respecting what a person chose while they were living and not dismissing it because “who cares, they don’t know they’re dead”. It may not be life and death, but how a person chooses to be “disposed” of after their death does have consequences on people around them..financial is one thing..we are still recovering from having to fly half way around the world and burying my dad they way he wanted even though that caused financial and emotional issues for us! You can’t just pick on organ donation- what about all the potential blood donors who don’t despite meaning they could save children’s lives..people who could donate money/food but don’t..just all that be an automatic opt in? It’s no for you to judge someone choice not to be a donor. I believe we all should donate. However, I believe it should be an informed decision that someone MAKES not opts out of.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Some people genuinely angry about something that happens after they die, which would help save lives. Mental. It’s not mental. Otherwise why respect ANY wish by a dying person, especially how they are buried. You wouldn’t just cremate a family memeber who for example wanted to buried next to a loved one, they’re dead after all, what do they know.. Why WOULDN'T you want to donate your organs? Being cremated or buried doesn't affect any lives so it's a flawed analogy. It's moot anyway, people literally still have the choice to be selfish and deny dying kids a new pancreas if they want. It’s not a flawed analogy, the point was about respecting what a person chose while they were living and not dismissing it because “who cares, they don’t know they’re dead”. It may not be life and death, but how a person chooses to be “disposed” of after their death does have consequences on people around them..financial is one thing..we are still recovering from having to fly half way around the world and burying my dad they way he wanted even though that caused financial and emotional issues for us! You can’t just pick on organ donation- what about all the potential blood donors who don’t despite meaning they could save children’s lives..people who could donate money/food but don’t..just all that be an automatic opt in? It’s no for you to judge someone choice not to be a donor. I believe we all should donate. However, I believe it should be an informed decision that someone MAKES not opts out of.." The issue is that according to surveys the majority of people do want to donate their organs after death, they just don't get round to going onto the register before they die. The figures were quoted above. So as the majority want to do it, but can't be bothered to go onto the register a new system has to be put into place. If you feel that strongly about it, you will opt out. It really is that simple. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The state are trying to gain more and more control over us. Our bodies belong to us not the state. If someone decides to register to donate then that's their choice making everyone automatically on the donation register is wrong. This country is becoming a complete nanny state That’s just nonsense, how hard is it really to just go online and opt out. I’d understand if there was no option to opt out, that would be different but the choice is still there. Like people have said, 80+ % of people agree with organ donation but a much smaller percentage register, it’s to solve the gap in agreeing to it and taking the time to register. It's not nonsense it's a persons right to decide not the state if people want to register that's their choice. Making is automatic is taking that right away. They’re not removing the choice tho, it’s still there, the choice is to opt out or remain in rather than the other way round. Nobody is being forced into organ donation. The assumption by the state that people want to donate is wrong if people want to they opt in. Say someone dies as the new rules come in and they don't have the opportunity to opt out then what happens the state takes their organs on an assumption Ignoring the fact that the family could object, or that lives would be saved, and you are citing a specific example involving cases just as the law would change.... It seems reasonable to think that there would be a big campaign to promote the change, before the change came into effect. It’s very unlikely that the law would change, and then people could opt out. It seems far more likely that people would be given a period of a few months, during a big publicity campaign, to opt out prior to the law actually changing. Still what gives the state the right to assume that people want to give their organs an opt in system is a lot better Because the current system obviously isn't working. The current system may not be working but that doesn't give the state the right. " The right to what exactly? If there is the option to opt out, it doesn’t sound like they have the right to anything. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Some people genuinely angry about something that happens after they die, which would help save lives. Mental. It’s not mental. Otherwise why respect ANY wish by a dying person, especially how they are buried. You wouldn’t just cremate a family memeber who for example wanted to buried next to a loved one, they’re dead after all, what do they know.. " How does cremating a family member who wanted to be buried next to a loved one save lives? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Very good thing. Already on the register. If anything works, use it, burn the rest, chuck it in the bin. When I'm gone, I'm gone. Got a piece of vinyl and EP with my name on, won a nice award, produced a documentary that's on Netflix. That's what I'll leave behind "What was the documentary called? (sorry for the digression OP). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
