Automatic organ donation - Page 4

Admiral Huddy · 14-01-2008, 14:52

My organ are pretty much useless to me when I'm dead so anyone is welcome . The todger comes with me though!

I think it's a good idea providing that some parts are at discretion. Eye's for example.

goldilocks · 14-01-2008, 18:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will

Well this re-enforces my point, that you should have a choice as to who or what type of person should get your organs! ... really furious if my organs had gone to some low life who had no respect for life.

i'm not picking on 'you' will - you just wrote what other people have been saying in a very succinct way

can you imagine being the mother / father to a young person who's life had happened to go a little off the rails and they'd turned to drugs - sorry sir / madam, but no one wants to donate organs to your child, as they proved themselves to be a complete waster...

you wouldn't want your organs to go to a doctor who smoked 20 a day to get through the stresses and strains of a demanding and heartbreaking job?

and if this is going to be the case - do you make people sign some kind of a decree?
i have *so and sos* and organs and i will not drink / smoke / do drugs - and if i do i know i risk having the organs taken back off me.

they are ott and melodramatic ideas i know - but i don't see how else this can be sorted out?
either give, or don't give - i don't think there can be room in this legislation to be picky
about to whom

Haly · 14-01-2008, 18:24

I don't really mind who has my organs as long as they're not rotting with me when I'm dead.

Will · 14-01-2008, 18:26

Oh I agree there isn't really an answer, I was merely plucking ideas that would (if I were still alive, or surrounded by people who were being involved with either giving or receiving) bother me if ever put in that god awful position.

A lot of it is down to lifestyle choice. I happen to know someone that had little or no respect for his own life, smokes, drinks too much, did some drugs and doesn't do any exercise or looks after his diet. He had cholesterol that was over the scales, his heart struggled, his liver was struggling to regenerate and he had already had one kidney removed. He had a heart attack... during which process his heart (lower left ventricle) actually split. He had a heart transplant, and fortunately had very little rejection, yes he still has to take pills and so on. This experience was so traumatic for him that he changed his lifestyle completely. Then again he was 32!!! He doesn't drink, he doesn't do drugs anymore, he's gone a little OTT on the food/diet front (but hey he's making the effort), and his life expectancy has gone up from 40 to 56. He's bought back 16 years of his life thanks to a) a new heart b) a change in lifestyle. That I applaud, that I support - for this exact reason organ donations are amazing.

Of course they are amazing for all the children that are saved by them every year - I think saving children is imperative as they haven't had a chance at life and they haven't been subjected or consciously in charge of their diet and their lifestyle, they have a chance to live a good and prosperous and rich life and give back lots.

Of course it brings up prejudices making stipulations, and I accept it would never work however it was perhaps a bit of a devil's advocate statement however one that I actually stand by - in spite of the fact it is improbable and impossible to actually action on.

Don't worry I don't feel "picked" on I'm a tough git despite my soft side.

Things like organs going to a doctor who smoked, well I'd expect my doctor to know better and not to smoke in the first place, and the handful of doctors I know don't smoke and are relatively healthy. It's rather hypocritical of them to damage their bodies and preach about organ donors IMO. Furthermore they are ambassadors to health, and should lead by example. If you can't be that self controlled I don't want you to be my doctor frankly! I know that wasn't your point but I thought I'd be pedantic about it anyway

You're right though there is no fair way of "handing out" organs - and as has been said children get priority over them anyway - which is what I'd hope and expect. I know that in this world we live in also it would be absolutely awful to allow/deny people the chance of life, and we couldn't isolate/segregate in such a manner - it would incite a class issue and no doubt bring with it some immoral practices and bribery as well as corruption which is the last thing we need in this situation.

However I'd rather they go to medical research if their fate weren't going to be towards a positive endeavour.

Going back to the point of the "yes by default, from the government" it is a laudable idea and one reminiscent of some ultimate control almost like communism where teh state owns everything including your body. I understand the reasoning and argument and it's VERY strong as well as compelling. However I just don't like the way it's done. It doesn't stop me being registered as a donor (I do give blood too) I just don't like the way it's done,... it seems a little morbidly underhanded.

karbon · 14-01-2008, 20:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Admiral Huddy

My organ are pretty much useless to me when I'm dead so anyone is welcome . The todger comes with me though!

I think it's a good idea providing that some parts are at discretion. Eye's for example.

i remember discussing this with a mates mum when i was about 10 or so and i said at the time my eyes were the only bit i didn't want taken. she seemed to think (granted this may have just been to placate the 10 year old) that it was some film or section or something of your eye they took as your whole eye can't really be transplanted? so it would still have the colour and shape as it is.

this could be entireley nonsense and i'm not too up on my anatomy to be able to tell the difference or not.

Blackstar · 14-01-2008, 20:22

They can transplant retinas, its not your whole eye. Still i think my eyes would be the one thing i would be most against having taken, without your organs you are still a human shell but there is something about eyes.

Matblack · 17-01-2008, 10:59

I'm down to have anything usefull stripped out and if they like they can give my heart to a 90 year old crack addict with HIV who is overweight and smokes 20 a day, I honestly don't care.

Because I know I am not whiter than white, I can't put my hand up and say I've never done drugs, never smoked and that I'm not overweight. Are the only people who should recieve help those who have treated their body like a temple? Are these people more worthy of living, do those who have make mistakes not deserve a second chance?

I'm pretty sure Hitler was reasonably physically fit but I'd rather have given my heart to Churchill who by all account was over weight and a heavy drinker and smoker of cigars. And because I can't make a judgement call on how nice a person has to be before they can have my organs, I'd rather not make a judgement at all.

MB

Flibster · 17-01-2008, 11:21

I'm an opt out here.

No one will want my organs. They are severly screwed up from the amount I used to drink or from the amount of painkillers I've been taking since I was 16.

But, it's a bloody good idea!

14-01-2008, 14:52	#31
Admiral Huddy HOMO-Sapien Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Chelmsford Posts: 6,692	My organ are pretty much useless to me when I'm dead so anyone is welcome . The todger comes with me though! I think it's a good idea providing that some parts are at discretion. Eye's for example. __________________ I just got lost in thought.. It was very unfamiliar territory. Techie Talk \| My gaming Blog \| PC spec \| The Admirals log

14-01-2008, 18:24	#33
Haly Do you want to hide in my box? Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 14,941	I don't really mind who has my organs as long as they're not rotting with me when I'm dead. __________________ Halycopter

14-01-2008, 18:26	#34
Will BBx woz 'ere :P Join Date: Jan 1970 Posts: 2,147,487,208	Oh I agree there isn't really an answer, I was merely plucking ideas that would (if I were still alive, or surrounded by people who were being involved with either giving or receiving) bother me if ever put in that god awful position. A lot of it is down to lifestyle choice. I happen to know someone that had little or no respect for his own life, smokes, drinks too much, did some drugs and doesn't do any exercise or looks after his diet. He had cholesterol that was over the scales, his heart struggled, his liver was struggling to regenerate and he had already had one kidney removed. He had a heart attack... during which process his heart (lower left ventricle) actually split. He had a heart transplant, and fortunately had very little rejection, yes he still has to take pills and so on. This experience was so traumatic for him that he changed his lifestyle completely. Then again he was 32!!! He doesn't drink, he doesn't do drugs anymore, he's gone a little OTT on the food/diet front (but hey he's making the effort), and his life expectancy has gone up from 40 to 56. He's bought back 16 years of his life thanks to a) a new heart b) a change in lifestyle. That I applaud, that I support - for this exact reason organ donations are amazing. Of course they are amazing for all the children that are saved by them every year - I think saving children is imperative as they haven't had a chance at life and they haven't been subjected or consciously in charge of their diet and their lifestyle, they have a chance to live a good and prosperous and rich life and give back lots. Of course it brings up prejudices making stipulations, and I accept it would never work however it was perhaps a bit of a devil's advocate statement however one that I actually stand by - in spite of the fact it is improbable and impossible to actually action on. Don't worry I don't feel "picked" on I'm a tough git despite my soft side. Things like organs going to a doctor who smoked, well I'd expect my doctor to know better and not to smoke in the first place, and the handful of doctors I know don't smoke and are relatively healthy. It's rather hypocritical of them to damage their bodies and preach about organ donors IMO. Furthermore they are ambassadors to health, and should lead by example. If you can't be that self controlled I don't want you to be my doctor frankly! I know that wasn't your point but I thought I'd be pedantic about it anyway You're right though there is no fair way of "handing out" organs - and as has been said children get priority over them anyway - which is what I'd hope and expect. I know that in this world we live in also it would be absolutely awful to allow/deny people the chance of life, and we couldn't isolate/segregate in such a manner - it would incite a class issue and no doubt bring with it some immoral practices and bribery as well as corruption which is the last thing we need in this situation. However I'd rather they go to medical research if their fate weren't going to be towards a positive endeavour. Going back to the point of the "yes by default, from the government" it is a laudable idea and one reminiscent of some ultimate control almost like communism where teh state owns everything including your body. I understand the reasoning and argument and it's VERY strong as well as compelling. However I just don't like the way it's done. It doesn't stop me being registered as a donor (I do give blood too) I just don't like the way it's done,... it seems a little morbidly underhanded. __________________ *No No!*

14-01-2008, 20:22	#36
Blackstar Ambassador of Awesome Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Edinburger Posts: 3,676	They can transplant retinas, its not your whole eye. Still i think my eyes would be the one thing i would be most against having taken, without your organs you are still a human shell but there is something about eyes. __________________ Jim Garrahy's Fudge Kitchen

17-01-2008, 10:59	#37
Matblack Baby Bore Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Svalbard Posts: 9,770	I'm down to have anything usefull stripped out and if they like they can give my heart to a 90 year old crack addict with HIV who is overweight and smokes 20 a day, I honestly don't care. Because I know I am not whiter than white, I can't put my hand up and say I've never done drugs, never smoked and that I'm not overweight. Are the only people who should recieve help those who have treated their body like a temple? Are these people more worthy of living, do those who have make mistakes not deserve a second chance? I'm pretty sure Hitler was reasonably physically fit but I'd rather have given my heart to Churchill who by all account was over weight and a heavy drinker and smoker of cigars. And because I can't make a judgement call on how nice a person has to be before they can have my organs, I'd rather not make a judgement at all. MB __________________ "we had roots that grew towards each other underground, and when all the pretty blossom had fallen from our branches we found that we were one tree and not two"

17-01-2008, 11:21	#38
Flibster Moonshine Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,388	I'm an opt out here. No one will want my organs. They are severly screwed up from the amount I used to drink or from the amount of painkillers I've been taking since I was 16. But, it's a bloody good idea! __________________