This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

What are your views on these three organ donation proposals for the UK?

#1awittyusernamePosted 7/11/2013 6:48:24 AM
The NHS is considering preventing families from overriding the consent of people who have signed the organ donor register. [...]

Grieving relatives sometimes overrule the wishes of patients who have signed the organ donor register - although this usually happens when families are not aware of a loved one's wishes. [...]

It says the UK will examine systems - such as in the US - where families are not permitted to override pre-existing consent so people can be confident their pledge to donate will be respected. [...]

The strategy calls for a national debate on proposals to increase organ donation. For example it wants to know whether the public would support a system similar to the one in Israel and Singapore where those on the organ donor register get higher priority if they ever need a transplant. [...]

There are around 7,300 people in the UK waiting for a transplant. Last year there were 1,212 deceased donors.

NHSBT says the waiting list "considerably under-represents the true number of people who could benefit from an organ transplant".

It says evidence suggests the demand for transplants is likely to continue to increase in years to come. [...]

Dr Tony Calland, chair of the British Medical Association's ethics committee, said donation should become a natural and expected event.

He added: "The BMA believes the best way to achieve this is through the introduction of an opt-out system for organ donation, similar to that planned for Wales from 2015.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23260057

I support all three.
---
awittysignature
#2blacktrancePosted 7/11/2013 8:40:34 AM
The first one is unambiguously good. Families don't get to override a deceased person's will (unless the will has something illegal in it), so the same principle should apply here.
The second one is an improvement over the status quo, but organ markets would be even better.
The third one is somewhat iffy. It's good that you can opt out, but why should consent be the default? It's not like we assume that people consent to everything they don't explicitly opt out of.
---
"With enough brutal force the thieving rabble can be kept in line." - Rebelscum
#3Brett8Posted 7/11/2013 8:42:38 AM
All are great.
---
http://www.last.fm/user/Brettyb16
#4Nitro378Posted 7/11/2013 8:47:03 AM
http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/261-politics/66628381
---
Zombie Clement Attlee 2015 --- (Zombie) FDR/Sanders 2016
If you want friends in Washington, get a lobbyist - me
#5ArwenTinuvielPosted 7/11/2013 10:03:30 AM
#1: Great. There is zero reason why the deceased's relatives should have the ability to override the person's will.

#2: Not bad. I think this would increase the amount of organ donors in the long run, but as an organ donor myself I don't really care either way.

#3: Great. It will increase the amount of organ donors in the long run while still providing choices for those with religious or other personal objections.
---
http://arwentinuviel.deviantart.com/
#6kozlo100Posted 7/11/2013 10:08:36 AM
I was iffy about #1 until blacktrance's point about wills. That does make sense, and your family shouldn't be overriding your wishes.

#2 I guess I'm ok with as long as that factor is the last one considered in a tiebreaker type scenario.

#3 I'm all for. We, as human beings, should be implementing that world wide.
---
Time flies like the wind,
and fruit flies like a banana.
#7Superlnfinity45Posted 7/11/2013 12:14:01 PM(edited)
1 and 2 seem quite reasonable.

Meanwhile I would not agree to 3 because I believe that modern medicine is a terrible thing, even when it helps people. That's not how biology is supposed to work and in the end all such systems will collapse.

If medical science is causing someone to remain alive, then in the future their descendants will have the same problems. Charles Darwin noted this dilemma in his Descent of Man. It's the height of arrogance to believe that we can mess with nature, stick an organ from here into there. The so-called miracles of modern medicine only cause greater pain in the long run. Guess what, we all die. It's the medical scientists who are living in a hippy dreamworld, thinking they are doing something good and making a difference.

---
He who understands baboon would do more towards metaphysics than Locke. - Charles Darwin
#8Thanatos the GreatPosted 7/11/2013 12:50:16 PM
1 and 3 are good. 2 is terrible.
---
"A straight line may be the shortest distance between two points, but it is by no means the most interesting." - The Doctor
#9FunWithAFryPanPosted 7/11/2013 12:56:23 PM
Superlnfinity45 posted...
1 and 2 seem quite reasonable.

Meanwhile I would not agree to 3 because I believe that modern medicine is a terrible thing, even when it helps people. That's not how biology is supposed to work and in the end all such systems will collapse.

If medical science is causing someone to remain alive, then in the future their descendants will have the same problems. Charles Darwin noted this dilemma in his Descent of Man. It's the height of arrogance to believe that we can mess with nature, stick an organ from here into there. The so-called miracles of modern medicine only cause greater pain in the long run. Guess what, we all die. It's the medical scientists who are living in a hippy dreamworld, thinking they are doing something good and making a difference.


Well to be fair we probably shouldn't be listening to someone on this issue who is an admitted misanthrope.
---
He who strikes with meaning is killed by meaning.
#10Nitro378Posted 7/11/2013 1:23:28 PM(edited)
FunWithAFryPan posted...
Superlnfinity45 posted...
1 and 2 seem quite reasonable.

Meanwhile I would not agree to 3 because I believe that modern medicine is a terrible thing, even when it helps people. That's not how biology is supposed to work and in the end all such systems will collapse.

If medical science is causing someone to remain alive, then in the future their descendants will have the same problems. Charles Darwin noted this dilemma in his Descent of Man. It's the height of arrogance to believe that we can mess with nature, stick an organ from here into there. The so-called miracles of modern medicine only cause greater pain in the long run. Guess what, we all die. It's the medical scientists who are living in a hippy dreamworld, thinking they are doing something good and making a difference.


Well to be fair we probably shouldn't be listening to someone on this issue who is an admitted misanthrope.


And human extinctionist. And anti-miscegenationist.
---
Zombie Clement Attlee 2015 --- (Zombie) FDR/Sanders 2016
If you want friends in Washington, get a lobbyist - me