England to assume consent for organ donation

[Napkiraly]

It's just dumb

I hope you or your family never need a heart.

But you seem to be doing okay without one just now.

That doesn't justify this law. As an organ donor, I have chosen my body to be used as such if anything unfortunate has happened. Consent should be given, not assumed.

[Ifreann]

I hope you or your family never need a heart.

But you seem to be doing okay without one just now.

That doesn't justify this law. As an organ donor, I have chosen my body to be used as such if anything unfortunate has happened. Consent should be given, not assumed.

Why?

[His Excellence]

How?

It's just dumb

I'm pretty sure the people doing organ extraction, testing, and transplanting are far from dumb.

That doesn't justify this law. As an organ donor, I have chosen my body to be used as such if anything unfortunate has happened. Consent should be given, not assumed.

IMO the opt out system reduces body sanctity issues enough to be well outweighed by the lives being saved, but I respect that you feel differently, it's a pretty heavy subject all around.

[Napkiraly]

That doesn't justify this law. As an organ donor, I have chosen my body to be used as such if anything unfortunate has happened. Consent should be given, not assumed.

Why?

Why should people have to give consent for what is done with their own bodies instead of it being assumed?

[MLGDogeland]

It's just dumb

I'm pretty sure the people doing organ extraction, testing, and transplanting are far from dumb.

I cannot agree more.

[Dooom35796821595]

Why?

Why should people have to give consent for what is done with their own bodies instead of it being assumed?

Since most people don’t consider death when they’re young enough for their organs to be useful. Hard to give consent when you’re dead.

[USS Monitor]

Why?

Why should people have to give consent for what is done with their own bodies instead of it being assumed?

Because lives are at stake. If people are really bothered by the idea of their organs being used, they can opt out.

[Walpurgisnach]

That doesn't justify this law. As an organ donor, I have chosen my body to be used as such if anything unfortunate has happened. Consent should be given, not assumed.

Why?

Consent should always be affirmative consent. See: rape.

[Walpurgisnach]

It's just dumb

I hope you or your family never need a heart.

But you seem to be doing okay without one just now.

Worst argument in the entire thread.

[Walpurgisnach]

Why should people have to give consent for what is done with their own bodies instead of it being assumed?

Because lives are at stake. If people are really bothered by the idea of their organs being used, they can opt out.

Does the fact that lives are at stake allow us to violate people's civil rights?

[Infected Mushroom]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45056780

A new opt-out system for organ donation will be in place by 2020 in England, if Parliament approves "Max's Law".

Under the plans detailed by ministers, adults will be presumed to be organ donors unless they have specifically recorded their decision not to be.

The government said it would save up to 700 lives each year.

In the UK in 2017, 411 people died before the right donor was found, and more than 5,000 people are currently on the waiting list in England.

A similar opt-out system has been in place in Wales since 2015. Scotland plans to introduce a similar scheme and Northern Ireland has also expressed an interest.

I'm honestly amazed it's taken this long for this to become a thing in England. Dead people don't need organs and if they have an issue with donating they can make it clear before they die.

What say you NSG?

This is a great deal of disrespect for the dead. I expect hauntings to go up in the United Kingdom. Poor play on the part of the government.

Assuming Consent... this is the silliest thing ever. What a strange way to frame things... but I suppose that's how it has to be framed in a society where everything has to be framed in terms of liberty.

[Neutraligon]

Because lives are at stake. If people are really bothered by the idea of their organs being used, they can opt out.

Does the fact that lives are at stake allow us to violate people's civil rights?

How are people's civil rights being violated?

[Napkiraly]

Why should people have to give consent for what is done with their own bodies instead of it being assumed?

Because lives are at stake.

And? Lives are at stake is the justifications for all kinds of authoritarians security measures I'm sure you would oppose.

If people are really bothered by the idea of their organs being used, they can opt out.

Or perhaps we should allow people to determine what to do with their own bodies? After all, isn't this your position regarding abortion?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You know, I find it interesting how the same people who hold pregnancies as the prerogative of the subject who is pregnant are now arguing that the dignity of a dead person who wishes in life not to be desecrated is irrelevant just because they are dead.

[Walpurgisnach]

Does the fact that lives are at stake allow us to violate people's civil rights?

How are people's civil rights being violated?

It is not up to the government to decide what happens to your body after you die. People have the right to determine what happens to their body after they die. If you can assume consent for organ harvesting, you may as well assume consent for sexual intercourse. From a rights perspective, this is equivalent to necrophilia.

[Neutraligon]

How are people's civil rights being violated?

It is not up to the government to decide what happens to your body after you die. People have the right to determine what happens to their body after they die. If you can assume consent for organ harvesting, you may as well assume consent for sexual intercourse. From a rights perspective, this is equivalent to necrophilia.

I fail to see how the two are in any way similar. You still have the right to determine what happens after your body dies.

[Napkiraly]

Does the fact that lives are at stake allow us to violate people's civil rights?

How are people's civil rights being violated?

Because their bodily autonomy is being violated. Do you not see any issue in how assumed consent can be extended away from this if it gains acceptance?

[Ifreann]

Why?

Why should people have to give consent for what is done with their own bodies instead of it being assumed?

Given that the people in question will be dead, that assuming their consent will see their organs used to save lives instead of feeding worms, and that they will have ample opportunity to opt-out while they're alive, yes, why should consent need to be given instead of assumed?

[Walpurgisnach]

It is not up to the government to decide what happens to your body after you die. People have the right to determine what happens to their body after they die. If you can assume consent for organ harvesting, you may as well assume consent for sexual intercourse. From a rights perspective, this is equivalent to necrophilia.

I fail to see how the two are in any way similar.

Both deny affirmative consent.

[Napkiraly]

It is not up to the government to decide what happens to your body after you die. People have the right to determine what happens to their body after they die. If you can assume consent for organ harvesting, you may as well assume consent for sexual intercourse. From a rights perspective, this is equivalent to necrophilia.

I fail to see how the two are in any way similar. You still have the right to determine what happens after your body dies.

Both involve given consent in how their bodies are to be used and treated.

[Neutraligon]

How are people's civil rights being violated?

Because their bodily autonomy is being violated. Do you not see any issue in how assumed consent can be extended away from this if it gains acceptance?

Not really. They still get to choose what happens to their body.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Does the fact that lives are at stake allow us to violate people's civil rights?

How are people's civil rights being violated?

A person's body, in life, remains for the person to state what they want for their bodies to happen after death.

It's their body, hence it is their choice as to how their body is to be used, or not used.

[USS Monitor]

Because lives are at stake. If people are really bothered by the idea of their organs being used, they can opt out.

Does the fact that lives are at stake allow us to violate people's civil rights?

The dead don't care because they are dead, so this is pretty low priority as a civil rights issue. If someone is bothered by the idea while they're still alive, they have the chance to do something about it and opt out.

[Neutraligon]

I fail to see how the two are in any way similar. You still have the right to determine what happens after your body dies.

Both involve given consent in how their bodies are to be used and treated.

The difference being that in one no person is being affected since they are you know already dead.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Why should people have to give consent for what is done with their own bodies instead of it being assumed?

Given that the people in question will be dead, that assuming their consent will see their organs used to save lives instead of feeding worms, and that they will have ample opportunity to opt-out while they're alive, yes, why should consent need to be given instead of assumed?

It Is quite frankly their right not to give their body organs to other people.

Why should a person not be selfish when it comes to their death wishes to rot in a casket?