Source: PM backs automatic organ donation

What an excellent idea - instead of people having to go out of their way to elect in to organ donation, they should have to go out of their way to elect out of it.

Yeah, I can just see it. They sign people up automatically within seconds but then they take years to get you off the list.

I second that.

So?

If they have very few people who voluntarily join the list in the first place, then that means that a majority don't want to join it. The reasons are theirs and aren't relevant but they don't want to be on the list. In this venture, the ends do not justify the means in my opinion.

This is a huge leap of 'logic' or rather lack thereof. You completely ignore the possibility that there may be many people who would be quite happy to join but have not for various other reasons than they "don't want to". For example, they just have never thought about it, have just never got around to it, etc.

I think you can be sure that the overwhelming majority of people would be very willing to receive a transplanted organ if the need arose. Perhaps another idea is only those who elect to become donors should be eligible to receive transplants?

Its not a huge leap of logic or a lack of one. Just an observation. If you read my message entirely then you would have seen that I did not ignore that possibility but merely commented that it was irrelevant.

When I refer to them "not wanting to", I am not speaking of a conscious decision. If people don't know about it, then they don't want it. If they know about it, they may want it or in this case may want to participate.

Receive an organ, yeah. If the need arose, I think they would be willing to do a lot of things to survive.

I'm not sure what you mean about the other idea. In no way was I speaking about something like that. I have just observed people when talking about organ transplants and if they want to be a donor. I participated in a discussion just this one although it was about whether people should join willingly and their reasons not to.

It's not a huge leap of logic at all. If anyone is making huge leaps, its you and the people who came up with this horrible idea the seems to almost presuppose that a person's organs belong to the government, and the person is just borrowing them.

A person's organs belong to them. Period. That's all there is to it. If they want them donated, like I do, they indicate it like I did. Its not for the government to just assume control of them as if it has some claim to them. If a person doesn't elect to have their organs donated, that's their business and they need no justification, the organs just stay with them.

If you want more organ donars, call for incentives on organ donation, not involuntary seizure of them by the government. How about the government allows people to sell them or receive payment for committing to being an organ donar? Maybe the government could just allow organ donars a generous tax deduction while they remain organ donars? I can hear the protests already.

So now People do even have property being dead?

Give their Organs away and feed the rest of them to animals,
so we don't even need the space and money for graves.

If that is what you choose to have done with your remains I respect your decision, and hope the executors of your will comply with your wishes.

As for other people, there are a variety of different views and beliefs held about what should happen to their remains. For example, Muslims would find your idea detestable. Should their religious beliefs be respected or do your particular beliefs trump all because you think you have the planet's best interests in mind? Would you have a practicing Muslim's body scavenged for spare parts and the rest fed to the pigs? Against the will of his surviving loved ones? I wouldn't, even if the deceased was one of the animalistic ones who loved death more than life.

(I only use Muslims as an example because you seem to have a special place in your heart for them.)

People may not control their property once they are dead, but that doesn't demand the government automatically takes control either. Usually people leave behind family members and friends who will also be affected on some level by what happens with the remains of their loved one. I think the decision belongs ultimately to the individual's wishes while living.

The huge leap of logic is to say:

A: This group of people have not elected to have organ donation; THEREFORE
B: Those people all actively wish not to be involved in organ donation

This so called logic presupposes (as I already explained) that there is no third option - that the two things are mutually exclusive, which is not the case.

How is the plan anything to do with "involuntary seizure" when people are free to opt out of organ donation? Nobody has said anything about involuntary seizure except you. Personally I would be against that, though the argument has some merit.

And to further explain my other suggestion that Fortuna said he/she didnt understand ... it would work well either alone of hand-in-hand with the original suggestion in this thread if:

There should be a condition that if you are not on the donor list, you don't get on the recipient list. To my mind, expecting to be a recipient if the need arose, but not being willing to commit to being a donor if the opportunity arose, is to want something for nothing.

When I said that they didn't want to be on the list, I wasn't referring to an active conscious wish to not be on the list. Just that they didn't want to be for whatever reason.

About the "involuntary seizure", I would have to say that if this legislation got into different hands who wanted to exploit something about it, then it might lead to "involuntary seizure". I mean its kinda like the Patriot Act in America. It has a good concept and purpose and was implemented to help in that time but as far as keeping the legislation forever, it doesn't really look so good. People try to exploit it sometimes and then justify their actions by saying that the law said they could. Just my interpretation of it though.

If you're asking for my opinion about that then I do see the merit of implementing that condition. However, many people want something for nothing. The only example I can think of [which in no way am I implying it of anyone here] is of people who want you to listen to them and what they have to say but they don't want to listen to you.

Well...after thinking about it, people want cleaner, cheaper, more abundant energy but don't want to pay for it. Sometime in the future if that type of energy becomes the mainstream production, then they might still get the benefits of it while letting someone else pay for the research and development of it.

I'm just saying, when you get into absolutes, it tends to get kind of sticky. Maybe if it was like: If you are not on the donor list, then you don't get any priority on the recipient list. I don't know. Just throwing out an idea.

I agree that wanting something for nothing is all too common with most people. Just another aspect of what I see as the 'People Are Assholes When It Comes Right Down To It' syndrome.

Perhaps another variation of it would be when kids are born, their parents have to actively elect whether the kids will be donors or not. Or, when you get a drivers license, or renew it, you have to more actively select whether or not to be a donor - e.g. write in a box on the form your reasons not to. Or select from the following:
A: Religious Reasons
B: Cultural Reasons
C: I'm A Selfish Asshole
D: Other

I don't know about other countries but here in Australia it's just that little bit too difficult (ie it takes some effort such as a phone call) to elect in as a potential donor. It should be something that doesn't take any more effort than absolutely necessary.

I'm sure if there was just some government facilitation of serious widespread discussion on the issue to come up with ideas, a whole range of ways could be formulated to increase donor numbers.

Government facilitation of serious widespread discussion and/or action upon organ donation is something I would support. That in my mind is much better than just signing people up on the list automatically.

Its also a huge leap of logic to say:

A. This group has never made it clear, in writing, at a government building, that they want their body chopped up and distributed to the four winds; THEREFORE
B:This group must actively want to be involved in organ donation.

We could go around and round like that all day.

If you've never went to the trouble to say "I want my organs donated after I die," thus you've never volunteered, or to use your language, don't actively wish to be a donar, then taking organs from their body would be involuntary seizure.

My neighbor never told me not to fuck his wife, does that mean he wouldn't mind if I had an affair with her?

That specific part I'll agree with. What about the people who just came down with a big kidney problem and then rushed to the courthouse to register as a donar? I'd like to see a stipulation that they had been on the donar list at least five years unless they were 23 years old or younger, in which case they'd have to have been on it since 18.

I can just hear the moonbats: "What about the illegal aliens who speak no english who need a transplant - they didn't know, they weren't here, blah blah blah. You are discriminating against them because they are brown.

BTW, does your idea count for Muslims? You going to let a Muslim die a slow painful death after months or years of dialisis machines even if there are donated kidneys to spare because they never signed up for organ donation based on religious beliefs?

I just don't hate Muslims, you should stop looking at everything as black and white.

And I'm not living under Sharia-Law either.

Personally, I like the idea of everyone being a donor by default, but you're probably aware of the fact that I'm not in charge or the only one to decide in any country. I can only vote in two countries and I would vote accordingly to support it.

For the meantime I would be happy with somebody doing something to be recognised as a donor more easily and faster.
Or at least making the cause getting more attention.

I'm pretty damn sure there are a lots of people not having any objections about being a donor, but don't know how to get to be one, or don't want to go through the hassle.

How hard is it over there? Here, every time I get my ID card updated, they ask me if I still want to be an organ donar and I always say yes, and they put the little emblem on my ID card. I also stipulated it in will.

Pretty much every adult has an ID card of some sort, so they're all asked if they want to be a donar. Its not hard to say yes.

How often do you have to update your ID? Here an ID lasts 6 years.

And getting you first ID with 16, where you can't choose to be a donor, would let you face it the next time when you're 22.

Well, I had to go to the city hall and sign some papers when, I was 19 I think, still in Italy though.

I'm not sure what you guys mean by "ID card" - here in Australia the only thing resembling that would be a drivers license, and not everyone has one of those, by a long shot. And I don't recall being verbally asked about being a donor last time I renewed my license.

Here it's mandatory to have an id-card or a passport for everyone starting at the age of 16.

You don't have to carry it around, though.

Every citizen has a number, it's like a social security number in the US.

A specimen with "Jane Doe"

You should petition your government to fix the problem of people running around without identification and not being asked when they do, instead of asking them to seize people's organs without consent.