Should the organs of those dying in hospital just be automatically harvested?

[Lark]

Well, Catholics are buried because they're supposed to believe in a bodily resurrection all at once around Judgement Day.

What they make of the decomposition process, I don't know. They do keep the bones of saints in churches and some saints are said to have never decomposed (including Bernadette of Lourdes, I think).

I don't know if they need to keep organs. I never thought to ask whilst I was one. I think I am down to donate though, whenever I got my provisional licence I filled it out.

I'm not sure what I think of it. I reckons that the body is, in a sense, the tangible aspect of our consciousness. It is not just meat necessarily.

There's been a change in the wording of the creed at mass so that people dont look for the resurrection of the dead they look forward to the resurrection of the dead, I think this has all been some effort at ecumenicism and christian unity which wont be appreciated anyway but it does mean a belief in the some time future resurrection of body and spirit, although elsewhere in the liturgy there appears to be more talk of the spirit and spirituality which I presume is the disembodied or unembodied or unincumbered and incorporeal self.

Personally I dont think that bodily burial is that important, I certainly dont think its an issue for God, he can make whole and resurrect whatever he thinks or feels like, he created everything, can uncreate it and recreate it at any moment. These things and the rituals and traditions which go with it have different meanings to different believers within the church and I think that's a matter of personality and character.

Its not like the Islamic or Jewish faiths, to the best of my knowledge, which have real serious traditions, like being buried or interned in particular ways. The RCC is fine with organ donation so far as I know.

I would actually think it should be mandatory for anyone who is serious about practicing the doctrines associated with reverence for life.

 

[Lark]

It's those types of people that make religion look bad :doh:

I wouldnt think they are representative, I also dont know that they are particularly bad characters, a lot of them are consistent and dont personally denounce their convictions the minute it becomes difficult, they may not donate their own organs or blood but equally they dont accept donations either.

 

[bionic]

Well, Catholics are buried because they're supposed to believe in a bodily resurrection all at once around Judgement Day.

What they make of the decomposition process, I don't know. They do keep the bones of saints in churches and some saints are said to have never decomposed (including Bernadette of Lourdes, I think).

I don't know if they need to keep organs. I never thought to ask whilst I was one. I think I am down to donate though, whenever I got my provisional licence I filled it out.

I'm not sure what I think of it. I reckons that the body is, in a sense, the tangible aspect of our consciousness. It is not just meat necessarily.

:raises hand: ex-Catholic school girl here.... I was raised Catholic against my will.

Actually, organ donation is considered a sin in Catholicism. They even condone cremation. It's unacceptable cause you're changing the body you were born with. Even tattoos, dying your hair, using contraception, etc is frowned upon.

Their point is that the body needs to be completely intact when Judgment day comes so it can rise up so how can your ashes or organs from within another person ascend to heaven when they're scattered everywhere?

... Seems kinda pointless to me when the big person upstairs should be able to do recreate and deconstruct as they wish.

 

[SealHammer]

:raises hand: ex-Catholic school girl here.... I was raised Catholic against my will.

Actually, organ donation is considered a sin in Catholicism. They even condone cremation. It's unacceptable cause you're changing the body you were born with. Even tattoos, dying your hair, using contraception, etc is frowned upon.

Their point is that the body needs to be completely intact when Judgment day comes so it can rise up so how can your ashes or organs from within another person ascend to heaven when they're scattered everywhere?

... Seems kinda pointless to me when the big person upstairs should be able to do recreate and deconstruct as they wish.

so like did nobody ever dig up a dead guy back then to see what he looked like or anything like that

how's the big g gonna resurrect me if my thousand-year-old physical being is mostly scattered as individual molecules across a whole bunch of microorganisms and the living soil

is he just gonna poof me up as a big pile of dirt and bones or what

 

[ryiker]

I can see it now. Go in for a routine operation. ..some paper work gets mixed up. You wake up and your kidneys, spleen and heart are all gone.

Hell no. That option will be abused. I don't trust anyone to take my organs from me. I'm sure some dumbass doctor would take my organs while I'm in anesthesia after an operation. Shit like this has actually happened. I don't trust any doctors.
I'm an organ donor but I chose to do it because I had the option to and other personal reasons.

Yeah I got that. I see your point, but I still think it should be up to the individual to decide. In cases where an individual passes away before any information is presented, should the hospital be able to claim the organs without any consent?

Just like any system there are bound to be errors and abuse in some cases, I suppose I just consider that to be a given. Mistakes are made all the time medically although one hopes that the individual would actually be dead before any mix up occurred not just incompetent medical staff hacking open unconscious bodies like a flesh free for all....

Yeah sure, absolutely.
I'm willing to bet that most people don't give much of a shit about organ donation one way or another, and so a lot of them don't bother to sign up as organ donors. An opt-out organ donation system would help a lot of people suffering from failed organs through no fault of their own while allowing those who have passed on to help those who remain.
e: the one problem I can see is regarding children i.e. when and how would they opt out, when should they be eligible for donation, etc.

I would agree children would make the matter seriously convoluted for most people I would think.

Hmm...
An opt in system makes donors seem nice and genuine.
Opt out system makes non-donors seem like selfish assholes.

I think sprinkles sums it up nicely in this case- right now the system in place only requires people to be negligent and not bother registering if its not an issue that they would even consider, however if it is changed to opt-out only those with serious and non negotiable objections would have to file the paperwork.

Even with potential conflicts of mistakes and messy red tape of children, the disabled etc I would agree to the system changing to opt-out no hesitation. In my opinion it solves more problems than it could potentially create.

 

[sprinkles]

Why is a child corpse more sacred than an adult corpse? That smells of an arbitrary shift to me.

 

[ryiker]

Why is a child corpse more sacred than an adult corpse? That smells of an arbitrary shift to me.

A child corpse is no different to me personally but the public has....certain prejudices when it comes to children. I was thinking along the lines of how disturbed they would be and taking that into account as a potential backlash, but I see your point and I take my previous statement back- a corpse is a corpse regardless of it's state of development.

 

[SealHammer]

Why is a child corpse more sacred than an adult corpse? That smells of an arbitrary shift to me.

Not necessarily more sacred, but there's a whole lot of shaky ground regarding minority consent to various things (at least in the States) so it's just one of the many, many complexities that we're considering as part of the discussion.

Also and (imo) to a lesser extent, a child's body parts are useful in a much narrower field of patients and circumstances, so people with sensitivity regarding the handing of dead children would be asking why organs should be removed if they're not needed in the foreseeable future.

 

[sprinkles]

Not necessarily more sacred, but there's a whole lot of shaky ground regarding minority consent to various things (at least in the States) so it's just one of the many, many complexities that we're considering as part of the discussion.

Also and (imo) to a lesser extent, a child's body parts are useful in a much narrower field of patients and circumstances, so people with sensitivity regarding the handing of dead children would be asking why organs should be removed if they're not needed in the foreseeable future.

Of course if the organs aren't needed, don't take them out. Same as anyone else.

I just find it weird that we have no qualms about an opt out system for adults but with children it suddenly becomes a quandary. That alone makes it seem like it should be an opt in, because if it's not good enough for kids then you should probably really think about it.

It's just really strange to not be old enough to opt out of something AND be too young to participate.

 

[SealHammer]

Of course if the organs aren't needed, don't take them out. Same as anyone else.

I just find it weird that we have no qualms about an opt out system for adults but with children it suddenly becomes a quandary. That alone makes it seem like it should be an opt in, because if it's not good enough for kids then you should probably really think about it.

It's just really strange to not be old enough to opt out of something AND be too young to participate.

This is why it's a complexity. There's not a great legal or societal consensus on whether all or even most children are capable of making informed decisions regarding their bodily sovereignty.

 

[Barnabas]

I can see it now. Go in for a routine operation. ..some paper work gets mixed up. You wake up and your kidneys, spleen and heart are all gone.

Something tells me that if they remove both your kidneys and your spleen then you probably won't be waking up.

 

[Barnabas]

Of course if the organs aren't needed, don't take them out. Same as anyone else.

I just find it weird that we have no qualms about an opt out system for adults but with children it suddenly becomes a quandary. That alone makes it seem like it should be an opt in, because if it's not good enough for kids then you should probably really think about it.

It's just really strange to not be old enough to opt out of something AND be too young to participate.

It's mostly because it's hard to legally ascertain whether or not a minor understands enough of the situation to be a part of the system by default, which means they can't be assumed to have automatic consent. An ault can be expected to understand the system as it's described to them when they apply for their license.

 

[sprinkles]

This is why it's a complexity. There's not a great legal or societal consensus on whether all or even most children are capable of making informed decisions regarding their bodily sovereignty.

Yeah but opt out says it's ok by default i.e. if you don't have a reason, its good.

Opt out is tantamount to saying that harvesting is the default stance and you need to have some very specific opinions to object to it. If a child is not old enough to have these opinions, why should they be exempt? I mean isn't the point of an opt out system to get everyone who doesn't explicitly disagree? Especially considering the fact that the concept is relying on the inverse of apathy and that it looks a whole lot like the only reason opting out is an option is to satisfy the kooks who would complain.

 

[sprinkles]

It's mostly because it's hard to legally ascertain whether or not a minor understands enough of the situation to be a part of the system by default, which means they can't be assumed to have automatic consent. An ault can be expected to understand the system as it's described to them when they apply for their license.

If that's how it works then nothing really changes. If it depends on an informed decision whether or not to apply when you get your license then it makes no difference whether you call it opt in or opt out. If it's a yes or no question on a license app which you must answer then it is logically neither an opt in nor an opt out. For example we could already call it opting out by NOT applying.

A true opt out system would mean that you do not get to imply consent, and that apathy is an automatic yes. e.g. John Does who haven't said no are fair game to harvest.

Edit:
Or basically in an opt out system they don't necessarily lay out the options for you or press anything. It works the same as it already does in a lot of places - they don't really ask or press you, if you're interested in donating it is up to you to say so. An opt out works the same way in that they won't press you and it's assumed that you'll speak up if you're interested in opting out, and mere silence indicates a yes.

 

[sprinkles]

Put another way, an opt out system is like telemarketing. It's not an informed decision up until you realize on your own that there's a Do Not Call list to stop them - and they're certainly not going to tell you.

 

[Nixie]

No. Absoutely not. Organ donation is against my entire belief system and I would never willingly allow my organs to be harvested nor agree to have another's organs put into me.

 

[barbad0s]

No. Absoutely not. Organ donation is against my entire belief system and I would never willingly allow my organs to be harvested nor agree to have another's organs put into me.

why

 

[Barnabas]

If that's how it works then nothing really changes. If it depends on an informed decision whether or not to apply when you get your license then it makes no difference whether you call it opt in or opt out. If it's a yes or no question on a license app which you must answer then it is logically neither an opt in nor an opt out. For example we could already call it opting out by NOT applying.

A true opt out system would mean that you do not get to imply consent, and that apathy is an automatic yes. e.g. John Does who haven't said no are fair game to harvest.

Edit:
Or basically in an opt out system they don't necessarily lay out the options for you or press anything. It works the same as it already does in a lot of places - they don't really ask or press you, if you're interested in donating it is up to you to say so. An opt out works the same way in that they won't press you and it's assumed that you'll speak up if you're interested in opting out, and mere silence indicates a yes.

The problem with that kind of system is that it isn't fair to people ho opt out, the information about what an organ donor is has to be given and the option to be removed from the list of donors has to be presented because if you don't your discriminating against people who wish to not be organ donors.

The best a fair opt out system can do is assume the person says yes but give the option to say no.

It'd look something like this:

An Organ donor is defined as such: blash blah blah, organs would be donated to organization blah blah, under circumstances of blah.
[] I do not want to be an organ donor.

 

[sprinkles]

The problem with that kind of system is that it isn't fair to people ho opt out, the information about what an organ donor is has to be given and the option to be removed from the list of donors has to be presented because if you don't your discriminating against people who wish to not be organ donors.

The best a fair opt out system can do is assume the person says yes but give the option to say no.

It'd look something like this:

An Organ donor is defined as such: blash blah blah, organs would be donated to organization blah blah, under circumstances of blah.
[] I do not want to be an organ donor.

Who says we're trying to be fair?

What would be fair is an opt in system, but the premise here is that we're not trying to be fair, we're trying to meet demand for organs.

An opt out system WANTS to discriminate by getting people to check that box. You may as well call it the "I don't want to save lives check box of shame."

 

[Barnabas]

Who says we're trying to be fair?

What would be fair is an opt in system, but the premise here is that we're not trying to be fair, we're trying to meet demand for organs.

An opt out system WANTS to discriminate by getting people to check that box. You may as well call it the "I don't want to save lives check box of shame."

Let me rephrase that, the government has to give the appearance of being fair as to not be sued for discrimination.