All Your Organ Are Belong to Us


#1

Organ harvesting next on the agenda.


#2

Are you opposed to this measure?


#3

I’m cool with it.


#4

Unless they harvest my organs while in alive im all for it
Then again i can always opt-out


#5

I’m all for it too so long as I’m dead when they do it. I’m already carry an organ donor card so it’s no skin off my nose. The area of contention I can see is if someone is in a vegetative state with no next of kin, their life support system is turned off and then their organs harvested. Is the decision to turn off the life support taken early to ensure the organs are harvested before they degrade. Is there a trade in organs.


#6

It’s a reasonable question but not a new issue since organ donation is already a thing.

Doctors have a duty of care to the living patient. Dunno about here, but In the UK they don’t start discussions about organ donation until end of life decisions have been made. I imagine there are cases where the patient is kept alive while a recipient is found and ready.

AFAIK the mainstream religions are all in favour of organ donation too, so I’m not sure where any opposition would come from.


#7

QAnon. Organ donation/big state and dancing, portents of the apocalypse my friend.


#8

Who in their right mind could possibly disagree, right? :unamused:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China

:angry:

All the smuggies are “cool” with it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_donation


#9

Well done! We’re only four days into the year and you’ve already got the ‘false equivalence’ trophy all wrapped up.


#10

Is team tinfoil saying that this is the first step to Ireland harvesting organs of prisoners? I’m pretty sure there is a subsection of team tinfoil that would be happy with that in order to make prisons pay their way as the great Ayn Rand would recommend. This Smuggie wouldn’t be cool with that.


#11

@JohnnyTheFox @tulip
Thanks. But I really can’t accept.
It is not equivalence. Obviously I am highlighting an extreme example to illustrate that it’s not an clear argument for. There are issues of precedent, religious issues and issues of state transgression.


#12

They did those things without the laws being in place and is a cultural problem which is in the process of being resolved. There were civic and religious laws against dumping babies down toilets but that never stopped it from happening.


#13

Shirley it would be easier for them make a mistake and say they thought you had opted in, and hopefully if brain transplants become a thing the type of people who get bothered by this have opted out.


#14

You haven’t highlighted an extreme example of organ harvesting from dead people who haven’t explicitly consented.

You’ve used an example of State-directed murder of political prisoners in order to harvest organs.

That’s like saying that cannibalism is an extreme example of barbecue.

It’s ridiculous.


#15

@Eschatologist
The Chinese example is nothing to do with any type of “consent”, tacit or explicit.
The Chinese example is an extreme example of organ harvesting where the state is all powerful.

The Irish states’ organ grab is about tacit approval.
They are assuming they have dibs on dead citizens organs, unless that citizen had said otherwise. A power they didn’t have before.

As I said,


#16

“The documentary last week on RTÉ reminded us how vital this piece of legislation is and how essential organ donation is”

get the ole heart-string tugging underway and promote someone to the hilt to achieve this.

the concept of bodily autonomy was corrupted to pass the 36th amendment, and now this. :sick:


#17

I’m curious as to why anyone would be in favour of the State assigning itself de facto property rights over constituent parts of their own body.

People already donate organs if they make a personal choice to do so. Whats the issue with continuing the current system ie where people are required to have opted in?

Indeed, given the current ongoing public debate around the definition of consent as applied to cases of alleged rape or sexual assault, to include the non-acceptance of any form of ‘implied consent’ as a defence, including between married couples, it would seem potentially problematic for the State to be seeking to legislate in the opposite direction on this issue i.e. what would this be if not a form of ‘implied consent’?


#18

I guess you can out out then. Problem solved.


#19

I guess married women should also be required to explicitly opt out of unwanted sex with their husband post-marriage lest the assumption of their having consented be implied by virtue of the existence of a marriage contract?


#20

@propertyspire

No, the problem would not be solved.
By opting out, you are also tacitly agreeing with a system whereby the state can have dibs on a dead citizens organs if the don’t explicitly consent.