England to assume consent for organ donation

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Many posters are directly mentioning that the opt out system makes it okay in their view, and the wording of the OP makes it reasonable to assume such a system is standard.

If you don't like the system that's fine, feel free to disagree, but you seem to be putting words in peoples' mouths to make claims like that. It's certainly far less fucked up than the necrophilia comparisons.

The opt out system is retarded.

If you don't like the implications of your side then maybe you should call out your side not to make retarded arguments, just a friendly suggestion.

[Luminesa]

I have yet to do so myself, but I do donate blood as often as I can. Once I actually get my license I’ll probably do so.

I can't legally donate blood, to lightweight.

Oof. Welp, everyone can do a little of what they can I guess. To be fair I’m...right above the lower limit, to the point that I always need to eat heavy before I donate blood or else I get faint.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

THere is a reason I said that if they do this the method of opting out has to be free, highly advertised and easily accessed.

The economic aspects are wholly irrelevant to me (I understand that this applies to both of you). I wouldn't support an "opt-out" program even if it could be done instantaneously, because that is just not how consent works. We do not assume that somebody has given consent unless stated otherwise. We wait until we have affirmative consent. An "opt-out" program just reverses the proper direction of consent. I don't have to "opt-out" of not being subjected to unwanted sexual advances. Those who would make sexual advances on me have to get my affirmative consent first.

The economic aspect is, quite frankly, the biggest factor here.

People who have the money, and time, to go to court and declare they don't wish to be in the organ donor list are going to be able to do so, those who don't have either the money or the time won't, and in the end those people's wishes then become irrelevant.

I do not agree with the opt out system, for the record, but it's the fact that poor people's wishes will be disregarded under an opt out system what adds a whole other level of fucked up to it.

[Walpurgisnach]

You know that doctors already assume consent in some cases, yeah?

You'll have to provide more specific information in order for me to determine the relevant similarities and dissimilarities between those instances and the case of organ harvesting. That being said, the fact that doctors already do something does not necessarily make it ethical. Look at Unit 731 or Josef Mengele.

[Ifreann]

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?

People's right to choose to rot in a casket is not being denied.

---

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,

Irrelevant.

Of course it's relevant.

that assuming their consent will see their organs used to save lives instead of feeding worms,

They have never given consent in life, ergo you cannot assume consent is given at all. Consent has to be explicitly given.

What do you think happens if someone gets rolled into a hospital unconscious?

why should consent need to be given instead of assumed?

"She didn't say yes, but she also didn't say no, so it's okay that I assumed she wanted the D".

What if I told you that sex and post mortem organ harvesting aren't the same thing?

---

And they can do so. They can opt out.

Opting out is pretty dumb for this to be fair.

Not many people have the time, or the money, to want to go through many legal problems, particularly when it comes to their death wishes being respected.

Opting in is the better way to go about organ donations, because there are no moral quandaries based on class. In this effect, you are essentially giving license to desecrate the poor's death wishes.

What time, money, and legal problems do you believe would be involved in opting out of organ donation?

[Thermodolia]

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.

Ya know that it’s entirely possible that we can grow one nowadays. We really don’t need carve up dead people without permission

[Infected Mushroom]

Regardless of whether or not the organs should be taken "for the greater good" or not...

I think its clear that this law is very strangely/incorrectly framed.

"It is assumed that you Consent to allow the government to harvest your organs after you are dead... UNLESS you notify the government beforehand that you do not consent."

Isn't this a way of disguising:

"The government has the right and power to harvest your organs once you are dead. You have until the end of your life to stop that from happening by entering a formal statement with the government."

The second statement sounds way more natural and on-point as a description for what the law does yet if it were framed that way, it would never have been passed.

So you have to use this very strange, unnatural understanding of Consent so that it is all phrased in terms of freedom when really it has nothing to do with that.

In what other situation do we assume Consent unless a lack of Consent is expressed? The very term "Consent" implies a default condition of No Consent except where Consent is clearly and expressly given. It doesn't operate the other way around.

It makes no sense.

If you're going to propose the policy, at least be straightforward about it. "Mandatory organ harvesting of the dead with an optional opt out" is what it really is.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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?

People's right to choose to rot in a casket is not being denied.

---

Irrelevant.

Of course it's relevant.

They have never given consent in life, ergo you cannot assume consent is given at all. Consent has to be explicitly given.

What do you think happens if someone gets rolled into a hospital unconscious?

"She didn't say yes, but she also didn't say no, so it's okay that I assumed she wanted the D".

What if I told you that sex and post mortem organ harvesting aren't the same thing?

---

Opting out is pretty dumb for this to be fair.

Not many people have the time, or the money, to want to go through many legal problems, particularly when it comes to their death wishes being respected.

Opting in is the better way to go about organ donations, because there are no moral quandaries based on class. In this effect, you are essentially giving license to desecrate the poor's death wishes.

What time, money, and legal problems do you believe would be involved in opting out of organ donation?

No, it is being assumed they do not wish to rot in a casket, which is arguably less worse, but that's like arguing between being shot in the head being more lethal than a bullet puncturing a lung.

As for your other question, I presume you guys in England teleport to courts and all of you are legal experts in the topic of organ donation opt-outs?

[Pope Joan]

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?

What's to keep the state and the medical system from just killing off people to harvest their organs? No consent required, no proof; it looks like an invitation to serious abuse.

The state, in the name of what's good for the collective. running over the individual

[His Excellence]

The opt out system is retarded.

If you don't like the implications of your side then maybe you should call out your side not to make retarded arguments, just a friendly suggestion.

lol dude when I got my ID I just had to check a box to be listed as an organ donor, like it wouldn't be that easy to do the opposite.

[Thermodolia]

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.

That’s a horrible reason to do anything.

[Ifreann]

You know that doctors already assume consent in some cases, yeah?

You'll have to provide more specific information in order for me to determine the relevant similarities and dissimilarities between those instances and the case of organ harvesting. That being said, the fact that doctors already do something does not necessarily make it ethical. Look at Unit 731 or Josef Mengele.

Doctors assume that patients want to be treated when they cannot confirm a patient's wishes. They assume consent, because the alternative would be for doctors and nurses to stand around and let people die because they are too badly sick or injured to ask for treatment.

Does anyone here have a problem with doctors assuming consent in that context?

[Dogmeat]

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



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?

What's to keep the state and the medical system from just killing off people to harvest their organs? No consent required, no proof; it looks like an invitation to serious abuse.

The state, in the name of what's good for the collective. running over the individual

The same thing that was stopping them from killing off people to cut medical costs before.

This sort of hyperbolic doomsday scenario only serves to make the opposition look ridiculous.

[USS Monitor]

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?

If someone doesn't tell you whether they want an abortion or not, you should let the pregnancy continue because that is the option that leaves the most people alive in the end.

Choice comes first if someone has actually made a choice, but this is about people who haven't made a choice.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The opt out system is retarded.

If you don't like the implications of your side then maybe you should call out your side not to make retarded arguments, just a friendly suggestion.

lol dude when I got my ID I just had to check a box to be listed as an organ donor, like it wouldn't be that easy to do the opposite.

Yes, but that is an opt-in system.

In an opt-out system a lot of people who are non-donors are now going to be donors, by default. And licenses are not renewed every year, either.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

What's to keep the state and the medical system from just killing off people to harvest their organs? No consent required, no proof; it looks like an invitation to serious abuse.

The state, in the name of what's good for the collective. running over the individual

The same thing that was stopping them from killing off people to cut medical costs before.

This sort of hyperbolic doomsday scenario only serves to make the opposition look ridiculous.

It's honestly not as ridiculous as seeing the same people preaching about the wonders of body sovereignty being enshrined in law now saying there are exceptions where body sovereignty doesn't count.

[Thermodolia]

And they can do so. They can opt out.

But what if they don’t make their wishes known on paper before they die? “Whoops, your fault, I’m taking your organs.” What happened to clear consent?

If this was the US it would be a major legal battle that would most likely end up with the law being overturned and the doctor losing their DR license.

[Dogmeat]

The same thing that was stopping them from killing off people to cut medical costs before.

This sort of hyperbolic doomsday scenario only serves to make the opposition look ridiculous.

It's honestly not as ridiculous as seeing the same people preaching about the wonders of body sovereignty being enshrined in law now saying there are exceptions where body sovereignty doesn't count.

I don't think that's inconsistent on their part, I think they've always maintained exceptions. Such as vaccinating reluctant children, for instance, I'm guessing most of them would support that.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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


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

If someone doesn't tell you whether they want an abortion or not, you should let the pregnancy continue because that is the option that leaves the most people alive in the end.

Choice comes first if someone has actually made a choice, but this is about people who haven't made a choice.

This is actually a pretty horrifying statement, in context.

[His Excellence]

Yes, but that is an opt-in system.

In an opt-out system a lot of people who are non-donors are now going to be donors, by default. And licenses are not renewed every year, either.

Any country with an institution analogous to the DMV is capable of making opting-out way too accessible for these nonsense conspiracy theories you guys are throwing around to be an issue.

[Walpurgisnach]

You'll have to provide more specific information in order for me to determine the relevant similarities and dissimilarities between those instances and the case of organ harvesting. That being said, the fact that doctors already do something does not necessarily make it ethical. Look at Unit 731 or Josef Mengele.

Doctors assume that patients want to be treated when they cannot confirm a patient's wishes. They assume consent, because the alternative would be for doctors and nurses to stand around and let people die because they are too badly sick or injured to ask for treatment.

Does anyone here have a problem with doctors assuming consent in that context?

In some psychological experiments involving deception, true "informed consent" in the conventional sense is impossible; otherwise, the experiment clearly couldn't involve deception. In these cases, researchers must refer to the experiment to some type of ethics or review board, who are allowed to determine if that person would consent if they knew what the experiment entailed. The argument for treating people without affirmative consent in emergency situations is presumably similar. The argument for treating somebody without their consent, for instance, the argument for treating somebody who has been shot, is presumably that we can treat them anyway because we know they would consent if they could. While it is clear that anybody who is shot and incapable of consenting would want to be treated for gunshot wounds, it is unclear (or at least, not as clear) that anybody who is dead would consent to having their organs harvested if they were able to. Additionally, even if we take these kinds of cases to constitute the ethical justification of compulsory organ harvesting, the law in question does not conform to this ethical standard. As the law stands, the decision to harvest somebody's organs without their affirmative consent is not vetted through some kind of review board that could determine if that person would consent to having their organs harvested if they were able to.

In short, this law would be much less ethically sketchy if it involved some kind of review board to determine who would consent to having their organs harvested if they were able to.

[Napkiraly]

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


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

If someone doesn't tell you whether they want an abortion or not, you should let the pregnancy continue because that is the option that leaves the most people alive in the end.

So you agree that people should have to give their consent in order for medical procedures to be performed on them and that if they do not consent to it, their bodies should be left alone? Good to see you come around on the issue so quickly.

[Thermodolia]

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


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

If someone doesn't tell you whether they want an abortion or not, you should let the pregnancy continue because that is the option that leaves the most people alive in the end.

Choice comes first if someone has actually made a choice, but this is about people who haven't made a choice.

Fuck that noise. I might be a dirty authoritarian but even for me that’s too far.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It's honestly not as ridiculous as seeing the same people preaching about the wonders of body sovereignty being enshrined in law now saying there are exceptions where body sovereignty doesn't count.

I don't think that's inconsistent on their part, I think they've always maintained exceptions. Such as vaccinating reluctant children, for instance, I'm guessing most of them would support that.

Well, sure, and we have a reason to vaccinate reluctant children.

However, the argument that is being posed for this is essentially, in implication, "it's going to save lives so the dignity of the dead doesn't really matter". I don't see how the lives of the many outclass the dignity of the few in this instance, when there's specifically an opt-in system that works fine for saving people. Unless the medical community in England as a whole are so deprived of organ donors that they now have to resort to B-rated horror movie plots to get organs from dead people.

[Sick Jumps]

One intermediate solution: Mandated choice. When people go to the DMV, require them to answer the organ donation question. That has been shown to increase donor consent rates.