England to assume consent for organ donation

[Spirit of Hope]

Who in this situation is being harmed? The family is apparently ok with the organ harvesting, and the person is dead. No one is being harmed.

[The New California Republic]

If a deceased person did not register their wishes with their family, at all, and gave no hints, what are they to do? Its entirely plausible for the deceased's family to have no belief either way, and thus not object when prompted to have the organs harvested. However, if the deceased would have otherwise refused consent if explicitly asked, the state is still in a position to harvest organs from a non-consenting person.

Not really. They aren't taking organs from a non-consenting person at all, they are taking organs from a corpse. If the person didn't give any hint as to their views on organ donation to either the State or their family, then that's just too bad, as corpses aren't capable of saying anything on the matter. It falls to their family in that regard. Similarly, if someone dies intestate, then they have effectively forfeited any say over who gets their belongings, and it is up to the family and the State to figure it out between them somehow.

the next of kin system is no direct substitute for a person registering their explicit consent before death.

I never said it was, it is used as a backstop, not a substitute.

That you are going to such extreme lengths to split hairs, in order to uphold the ludicrous notion that absolutely no one will fall through the cracks, is utterly baffling.

How can a person fall through the cracks if they are dead? If a dead person did not consent to it while they were alive, and they never made their views on the matter known to either the State or their family when they were alive, then that is just tough shit. What is going to happen if organs are taken from the corpse of someone that wouldn't have consented? How would we even know, if they never made their views known? What are the consequences of going against the views of a dead person who never made said views known to anyone? Will their ghost haunt us or something, as that is the only real way of knowing and the only consequence that I can see...?

[Transarid]

What?

All praise to Allah (SWT)

Just say that first next time,
This is a predominately English site, and this is an English thread.

[The New California Republic]

All praise to Allah (SWT)

Just say that first next time,
This is a predominately English site, and this is an English thread.

I mean, it is a bit jarring if someone starts speaking in another language, but I personally wouldn't take much issue with it if the person included an English translation with the post.

[Pollona]

If a deceased person did not register their wishes with their family, at all, and gave no hints, what are they to do? Its entirely plausible for the deceased's family to have no belief either way, and thus not object when prompted to have the organs harvested. However, if the deceased would have otherwise refused consent if explicitly asked, the state is still in a position to harvest organs from a non-consenting person.

If the person didn't give any hint as to their views on organ donation to either the State or their family, then that's just too bad, as corpses aren't capable of saying anything on the matter. It falls to their family in that regard. Similarly, if someone dies intestate, then they have effectively forfeited any say over who gets their belongings, and it is up to the family and the State to figure it out between them somehow.

That you are going to such extreme lengths to split hairs, in order to uphold the ludicrous notion that absolutely no one will fall through the cracks, is utterly baffling.

If a dead person did not consent to it while they were alive, and they never made their views on the matter known to either the State or their family when they were alive, then that is just tough shit. What is going to happen if organs are taken from the corpse of someone that wouldn't have consented? How would we even know, if they never made their views known? What are the consequences of going against the views of a dead person who never made said views known to anyone? Will their ghost haunt us or something, as that is the only real way of knowing and the only consequence that I can see...?

At last. We agree then? The state is inevitably going to violate the bodily integrity of some individuals who would not have otherwise consented to have their organs donated, no? You're right that, in such instance as above the state's response is "well tough luck". I'm surprised it took 34 pages for a proponent to finally come out and say it.

Then, it follows you'd agree that under the former system of express pre-approval (consent), this scenario would never happen. I say all of this as someone who acknowledges the broader social value of transplanting more organs to save lives.

[The New California Republic]

If the person didn't give any hint as to their views on organ donation to either the State or their family, then that's just too bad, as corpses aren't capable of saying anything on the matter. It falls to their family in that regard. Similarly, if someone dies intestate, then they have effectively forfeited any say over who gets their belongings, and it is up to the family and the State to figure it out between them somehow.

If a dead person did not consent to it while they were alive, and they never made their views on the matter known to either the State or their family when they were alive, then that is just tough shit. What is going to happen if organs are taken from the corpse of someone that wouldn't have consented? How would we even know, if they never made their views known? What are the consequences of going against the views of a dead person who never made said views known to anyone? Will their ghost haunt us or something, as that is the only real way of knowing and the only consequence that I can see...?

At last. We agree then? The state is inevitably going to violate the bodily integrity of some individuals who would not have otherwise consented to have their organs donated, no? You're right that, in such instance as above the state's response is "well tough luck". I'm surprised it took 34 pages for a proponent to finally come out and say it.

The only way you have come to that conclusion is by ignoring the majority of what those 2 paragraphs say. No individuals are having their bodily integrity violated. A corpse doesn't satisfy the conditions for being called an "individual".

Then, it follows you'd agree that under the former system of express pre-approval (consent), this scenario would never happen.

Nope, it'd just be the inverse. The person may have wanted their organs donated, but they never made it known to anyone. It'd end up that the person's views aren't respected, and their bodily sovereignty will be violated by burning or burying their corpse without their organs going to where they wanted them to go to...

[Walpurgisnach]

Consent should always be affirmative consent. See: rape.

Except I didn't consent to being Belgian.

Will you pay my damages?

I can't tell if this is a purely a joke or a genuine attempt at constructing a parody counter-argument.

[Pollona]

Nope, it'd just be the inverse. The person may have wanted their organs donated, but they never made it known to anyone. It'd end up that the person's views aren't respected, and their bodily sovereignty will be violated by burning or burying their corpse without their organs going to where they wanted them to go to...

At last. We agree then? The state is inevitably going to violate the bodily integrity of some individuals who would not have otherwise consented to have their organs donated, no? You're right that, in such instance as above the state's response is "well tough luck". I'm surprised it took 34 pages for a proponent to finally come out and say it.

The only way you have come to that conclusion is by ignoring the majority of what those 2 paragraphs say. No individuals are having their bodily integrity violated. A corpse doesn't satisfy the conditions for being called an "individual".

I'd hate to let an argument with yourself go to waste. If, as you say, no individuals upon death can have their bodily integrity violated, how could an individual (who wished to have their organs donated but ultimately were not) have their bodily integrity violated under the old system? After all, according to your assertion they were just a corpse, and in your definition a corpse does not satisfy being called an 'individual'.

While I wait for your response, I'll go ahead and answer. Medical practice is not guided by wish fulfillment: its goal to ensure self-determination. Simply, that a patient's express consent is given before a proceedure is conducted on them. This is the substantive difference between the old and new system. In your inverse example (the "old way"), an unknown donor's personal wishes go unfulfilled, but their bodily integrity was not violated. Under the example I provided (the "new way"), a unknown refusant has their bodily integrity violated against their personal wishes. In the former system, no one's right to self-determination is in doubt, in the later it most certainly is.

The way we got here was that I fully agreed with your statements I quoted from your earlier post. I didn't have to ignore anything in your two paragraphs because you said it for me: Under the new law, some people who would not have consented to their organs being harvested will have their organs harvested anyway upon death (the result, as you said: 'tough shit').

But if you decide to go ahead and argue that dead people ("corpses") do not have rights, I'll be happy to refute that premise as many times as necessary.

[The New California Republic]

I'd hate to let an argument with yourself go to waste. If, as you say, no individuals can have their bodily integrity violated, how could an individual (who wished to have their organs donated but ultimately were not) have their bodily integrity violated under the old system? After all, according to your assertion they were just a corpse, and in your definition a corpse does not satisfy being called an 'individual'.

In the second paragraph I was suspending disbelief for a moment in order to answer you. It was necessary. I don't believe a corpse does satisfy being called an individual, I just set that aside for that brief moment in that particular paragraph.

Medical practice is not guided by wish fulfillment: its goal to ensure self-determination. Simply, that a patient's prior consent is given before a proceedure is conducted on them.

Not really. There are many instances whereby medical personnel have to carry out a procedure without consent. A person who is unconscious in a car wreck will not be able to consent to a medical intervention to save their life, for example, but the medical personnel don't wait patiently until they regain consciousness so they can get consent...

This is the substantive difference between the old and new system. In your inverse example (the "old way"), an unknown donor's wishes go unfulfilled, but their bodily integrity was not violated. Under the example I provided (the "new way"), a unknown refusant has their bodily integrity violated against their wishes. In the former system, no one's right to self-determination is in doubt, in the later it most certainly is.

Of course their bodily integrity is violated in the inverse example, something is happening to a part of their body that they don't want, i.e. it is being either burned or buried against their wishes. Self-determination very much is in doubt in the inverse example, as something is happening with their body parts that the person does not wish. But the entire point is moot in both the inverse example and your example, as if they didn't make their views known when they were alive then it is tough shit, because people can't speak from beyond the grave to voice their views. And what difference does it make anyway? Who is it harming? Is it violating the views of the dead person? They are dead. They have no feelings to hurt.

But if you decide to go ahead and argue that dead people ("corpses") do not have rights, I'll be happy to refute that premise as many times as necessary.

Corpses do not have the same rights as people. Not by a long shot. To infer that a like-for-like bodily sovereignty exists in the same way for both a living person and a corpse is ludicrous, especially if the dead person never made their views known while they were alive. If their views really meant that much to them, then they would have either told someone about them, or they would have opted out of the donor register.

[Prekonate]

d

[United African Confederation]

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?

I think there are good and bad aspects to this proposal.

In the UAC however all citizens are opted in, unless their religious identity (juju) forbids organ donation. In which case they can opt out.

[The New California Republic]

In the UAC however all citizens are opted in, unless their religious identity (juju) forbids organ donation. In which case they can opt out.

This is an OOC thread, no role play here...

[Des-Bal]

...

That was a lot of words to say nothing important. First of all your entire argument is based on the slippery slope so it would be totally understandable to let it die there. Following your flawed premise this does not undermine consent. Presuming a person wants to donate their organs is no different than presuming that an incapacitated person wants someone to assist them. It's an assumption being made at a time when the clock is ticking and the effected person cannot communicate their wishes.

Further there are many jurisdictions where a registered organ donor can have their status disregarded when their family objects. In some cases this is allowable where the deceased told their families that they no longer wished to donate but in other's it's just on their objections.

This is not eroding the principle of consent it's making a sensible change to the default state of a binary choice.

[Prekonate]

I made a measured, cause and effect argument that the act could have wider ramifications on the law. I provided ample evidence to support my position. You're dismissing it as a fallacy because you don't know how to respond to it on its merits, prob because you don't know as much as you think you do.

[Des-Bal]

I made a measured, cause and effect argument that the act could have wider ramifications on the law. I provided ample evidence to support my position. You're dismissing it as a fallacy because you don't know how to respond to it on its merits, prob because you don't know as much as you think you do.

I dismissed it as a fallacy because it's merits are fallacious. Please note that after I pointed out that your entire argument was a fallacy I explained why it fell apart regardless. Your cause does not actually effect your effect and you're presuming a novelty that just doesn't exist here.

[Prekonate]

Both of your other arguments were dismissed in my post

[Prekonate]

Also notable that you agree the act will change the fundamental structure of consent from a "binary choice," say this change is "sensible," then claim i have not proven the act will change the structure of consent

[Des-Bal]

Both of your other arguments were dismissed in my post

There's a difference between dismissal and refutation. There is absolutely no reason to believe this will in any way effect the way consent works except in this one narrow and beneficial context.

[Pollona]

Medical practice is not guided by wish fulfillment: its goal to ensure self-determination. Simply, that a patient's prior consent is given before a proceedure is conducted on them.

Not really. There are many instances whereby medical personnel have to carry out a procedure without consent. A person who is unconscious in a car wreck will not be able to consent to a medical intervention to save their life, for example, but the medical personnel don't wait patiently until they regain consciousness so they can get consent...

Temporary incapacitation is a common, well known exception in medical law that Prekonate and others have already gone into. In the case of individuals temporarily incapacitated and unable to give prior consent, the medical profession assumes an individual would prefer to live rather than die. If an individual, upon regaining their faculties, would have rather preferred death, they can still seek relief under the law and sue their medical practitioners for battery and violating their bodily integrity. As extraordinary as it may seem, this has actually happened before (Jehovah Witnesses and blood transfusions).

While there are many individual instances of incapacitation, temporary incapacitation itself is one of the only exceptions to the principle of prior consent in medicine. With organ donation, a medical practitioner has the ability to obtain consent before performing the procedure. And, of course, there is the problem that organ donation is not a necessary medical procedure to save the person's life, unlike many instances of temporarily incapacitation, where surgery to save organs is often necessary.

This is the substantive difference between the old and new system. In your inverse example (the "old way"), an unknown donor's wishes go unfulfilled, but their bodily integrity was not violated. Under the example I provided (the "new way"), a unknown refusant has their bodily integrity violated against their wishes. In the former system, no one's right to self-determination is in doubt, in the later it most certainly is.

Of course their bodily integrity is violated in the inverse example, something is happening to a part of their body that they don't want, i.e. it is being either burned or buried against their wishes. Self-determination very much is in doubt in the inverse example, as something is happening with their body parts that the person does not wish.

You are again confusing wish fulfillment and self-determination, which are not the same. In regards to bodily integrity the principle in medicine is that nothing can be done to one's bodily person without one's consent, otherwise that is battery and represents physical injury. No inverse principle exists. In law you cannot sue someone for not violating your bodily integrity (ie not committing battery). And in the same manner, you cannot sue someone for not performing a procedure because you withheld consent, if that were true it would turn medicine into a farce. And no, in your example the person (or estate) could not sue the doctor for negligence, because to prove negligence one has to demonstrate injury.

In your inverse example an unknown donor's wishes go unfulfilled, but their bodily integrity was not violated. Under the example I provided, a unknown refusant has their bodily integrity violated against their wishes. In law and in practice the two are not equivalent.

If the unknown donor really wanted their views known, they could have simply opted in to the donor registry, and this entire hypothetical would be more pointless than it already is.

And what difference does it make anyway? Who is it harming? Is it violating the views of the dead person? They are dead. They have no feelings to hurt. Corpses do not have the same rights as people. Not by a long shot. To infer that a like-for-like bodily sovereignty exists in the same way for both a living person and a corpse is ludicrous . . .

Just because corpses do not have the same exact rights as living people, a position I never asserted, does not mean they have no rights. As I said I've covered this quite a number of times before, where the dead's legal rights can be carried out via living proxies. The "feelings" you mockingly refer to can be enforced by a court of law (e.x. wills). As for the physical personhood, I'm curious as to your reasoning how exactly a corpse's' bodily sovereignty compared to living beings. We have quite a number of statutes on grave robbing and body snatching, protecting a dead person's bodily integrity, which would disagree with your broad assertion.

I made a measured, cause and effect argument that the act could have wider ramifications on the law. I provided ample evidence to support my position. You're dismissing it as a fallacy because you don't know how to respond to it on its merits, prob because you don't know as much as you think you do.

I dismissed it as a fallacy because it's merits are fallacious. Please note that after I pointed out that your entire argument was a fallacy I explained why it fell apart regardless. Your cause does not actually effect your effect and you're presuming a novelty that just doesn't exist here.

In order to demonstrate an entirely fallacious argument based on the notion of a slippery slope, you need to actually prove a specific weakness in certain links in his chains of argument. Anyone paying attention to the thread would know your counter example (incapacitation) is fundamentally flawed, because its not substantively the same as post-mortem organ donation. And, as already argued, the 'next of kin' clause is irrelevant to the actual problem.

Otherwise you are ironically committing the fallacy of dismissing an argument as a fallacy, without actually proving it is a fallacy.

[Des-Bal]

If an individual, upon regaining their faculties, would have rather preferred death, they can still seek relief under the law and sue their medical practitioners for battery and violating their bodily integrity.

Source.

[Spirit of Hope]

That is actually the opposite of the truth, as most states have good samaratain laws that protect those who render aid to a person who is incapacitated, in many cases even if the person denied consent for aid while conscious.

IIRC, in England it is a part of common law, not actually a written statute, and can at times require a person to give care.

[Western-Ukraine]

It's sickening, no matter the intent. We're above disrespecting the dead who have no way to object or resist, even if those people had the choice to opt out. There are many scenarios where one would not opt out, too many to ignore.

[Vassenor]

It's sickening, no matter the intent. We're above disrespecting the dead who have no way to object or resist, even if those people had the choice to opt out. There are many scenarios where one would not opt out, too many to ignore.

Which is why the family has veto rights.

[Western-Ukraine]

It's sickening, no matter the intent. We're above disrespecting the dead who have no way to object or resist, even if those people had the choice to opt out. There are many scenarios where one would not opt out, too many to ignore.

Which is why the family has veto rights.

That's not enough. Family members aren't always able to follow the will of the dead individual.

[Spirit of Hope]

It's sickening, no matter the intent. We're above disrespecting the dead who have no way to object or resist, even if those people had the choice to opt out. There are many scenarios where one would not opt out, too many to ignore.

I find it hard to call using the organs of one who has died, to save one who still lives, disrespecting the dead.

I also find it hard to come up with "many scenarios" where a person can't fill out a simple online form and/or let their family know about their wishes.