All Your Organ Are Belong to Us


#21

In as few words as possible…

  1. It’s not doctors enabling the State, it’s the State enabling doctors.
  2. The objective is to treat sick people.
  3. Notwithstanding your rights, in practical terms why do you care what happens to your corpse?
  4. Marital rape comparisons are nonsense because marital status has no bearing on consent.

#22

@Eschatologist
The treatment by doctors of those citizens in need is not the issue. Everybody wants sick people to get treatment.
And it’s not about one individuals opinion, it’s about all citizens rights, now and in perpetuity.
A right given up to the state is never given back.
Essentially you are opening a Pandora’s box for further erosion of your rights.


#23

Marital status did have a bearing on consent in the past whereby consent was implied to have been provided by both parties by virtue of the existences of a marriage contract…and marital rape did not exist as a result ie because of the implied consent contained therein. This was subsequently deemed to be unethical and implied consent is now never accepted as a defence.

Likewise now the current trend is toward requirements for explicit consent in the form of positive verbalisation or similar being provided prior consent being affirmed. I assume from your previous posts that this is a trend of which you would be supportive…and I’m curious why you would oppose the same principle applying in this instance.

There’s is a perfectly good system in operation which requires people to provide formal consent should anyine wish to access their organs. Why change it ? Or maybe a btter question is why would formal consent have been required to date?


#24

I’m shocked at the faux civil liberties and casting the state as some bogie man who wants to steal your organs to satisfy its nefarious lust for your blood.

This is about taking the organs of an already dead person and giving those organs to a living person who will die without it.

It’s a myth to think that carrying a donor card allows you to donate you organs but not caring one means they won’t be donated. Every single suitable patient that could donate organs is put up as a candidate already. What happenes is that the family are asked what were the wishes of the patient and permission is sought from the family. It’s a difficult time to ask so the function of a donor card is to have that conversation earlier to make the decision easier for the family at the time.

This measure of opt in changes absolutely nothing about that. It is not proposing to strip away the rights of anyone but it is trying to make the conversation with the family easier as it is presumed that every has effectively got a donor card.

To suggest otherwise and put up comparisons with state sponsored murder of political prisoners or marital rape is disingenuous at best and at worst it risks a dying person not getting a heart, kidney or liver that will save their life.

I do hope we have an opt out system, then anyone who doesn’t want their organs donated can let their NOK know and that’s that.


#25

See my answer above.
There is no system in place to give legal consent. Signing a donor card has no legal standing.

The legal position currently is that a dead person has no rights in law, a dead person has no property rights including the right to their own organs. Also the NOK have no legal rights to the body at all and have no legal right to say what happens any part of it. Legally speaking a dead body and it’s organs including a brain dead body on a life support machine is already the property of the state.

This is the current legal situation.

In practice however, the NOK are asked their wishes and for information about the wishes of the previously alive person. It would require exceptional circumstances for those whishes not to be adhered to.


#26

Spare me the faux outrage.

Affording a health service that has killed numerous women over the past few years through negligent incompetence while subsequently seeking to cover their tracks, the right of unfettered access to peoples organs on the basis of seeking to protect doctors from ‘difficult conversations’ isn’t something I’m in favour of.

You’ll note that this whole issue arose due to the fact that they were taking people’s organ without having informed their next of kin.

The provision of explicit Consent, either provided by the deceased prior to death or by their family post facto, is a perfectly reasonable requirement before extraction of anything from somebody’s body. And if that’s not the case currently then manybe we should be moving in that direction.

My body my choice and all that…


#27

Strange question.

Why wouldn’t you care what happens to your body or indeed the body of someone you love?


#28

It’s just meat. I’d probably draw the line at necrophilia using the corpses of my children, but that’s about it. For my own body anything goes.


#29

@Eschatologist
At least you have some standards, right?
:unamused:


#30

:laughing: :laughing:
Wait, I’m out of breath, is there a doctor in the house?
:laughing:


#31

If it’s just meat why would you object to any form of necrophilia?

It sounds like you’d require Jimmy Saville to have obtained a form of consent prior to him entering the mortuary…which based on your above statement likening the dead to ‘meat’ would be both inconsistent and hypocritical on your part.

You sure this isn’t just you raising the standard detached pseudo-intellectual ‘progressive goes here’ banner for the benefit of like minded sentient slabs of meat?


#32

Leaving aside the fact that we’re now discussing necrophilia on a thread about organ donation, I’m not saying necrophilia is right, I’m just saying I don’t care about what happens to my corpse, including wrong things, and I’m prepared to defend my not giving a shit to extreme levels in the same way that you’re prepared to defend your giving a shit to extreme levels, including the rather perverse case where you do care but can’t be bothered to opt out.

Is this a libertarian thing? It’s not rooted in any mainstream religion as far as I know.

Will you be opting out?


#33

I’ve suggested that the ethical approach would be for people to opt in rather than be required to opt out.

I’ve also suggested that this would be consistent with current legal trends around the principle of consent generally.

I’m at a loss as to why you or anyone else would oppose such a stance…or at least I was up to the point you introduced the meat/necrophilia aspects.


#34

You still haven’t answered my question. Will you be opting out?


#35

I don’t think that’s accurate.

Property implies the state has the right to do with your body what it pleases.

There are a few situations (criminal investigations, infectious disease) where the state can take ownership of your body. But otherwise your family has the right to take posession of it for disposal in a set of highly restricted ways.


#36

Weak argument from the permanently outraged. Unwanted sex is called rape, it’s not an opt in or out situation is it.


#37

I am very uncomfortable with being expected to opt out of this. Opt in appears to me to be the only ethical way to approach organ donation.

I agree with the analogy to marital rape - consent was implied by way of the marriage contract. That was wrong and was found to be wrong. Here, consent is implied by way of what…being alive? Holding an Irish passport? Dying in an Irish hospital?

The Irish state already has form when it comes to (lack of) consent in this regard. How about when Crumlin was selling brain tissue to pharmaceutical companies?

rte.ie/news/2000/0209/5513-organs/

I am happy for my organs to be donated when I no longer need them, but I am not happy not to have ownership of them. For this reason, I intend to look into opting out.

The feeling of loss of control is very difficult for some patients. I find that this exacerbates that feeling.


#38

Are you really incapable of grasping that the principle of consent may apply to more than one aspect of human endeavour/life generally?

And that, generally, our legal system aspires toward the maintenance of consistency in its application of such principles across the board?

As stated previously my position is as follows

You’re free to label it a position grounded in ‘outrage’.

I disagree.


#39

I’ll tentatively give this a thumbs up.

My issue with a lot of this type of opt-out legislation is most people’s ignorance of it’s existence at all until it is too late. It has happened before with the likes of the Cohabitants Act. In the case of this Act too I suspect it has likely done more good than bad (without basing that on any intrinsic evidence). However, there have certainly been cases where some ex-partners who can only be described as the leeching type have done quite well out of it. People being aware of its existence may still not mean they will opt-out however as it could certainly be seen a vote of no-confidence in a relationships future by one of the partners.

Is this sort of blanket legislation covered in school? I know it certainly wasn’t when I was in the system.

Back to main topic as I’m not familiar with the industry but is there a divide between Private and Public donations? Could Health Insurance providers, in the future, feasibly provide their own opt-in schemes as part of their contracts, whereby signing up to that you are then opting out of the state scheme? I’m no fan of the HSE and can almost already imagine fridges of organs going to waste and rotting due to some bureaucratic cock up.


#40

I’ve no problem with this.
When you’re dead, you’re dead.
Hopefully going to save a huge amount of lives.