Why are you not willing to donate your organs?

Status
Not open for further replies.
NoblesseOblige said:
Did I say he wasn't entitled to have his opinion? Did I say he didn't have that right?
Click to expand...

No, but its the suggestion he is something of a bad person, or even stupider, 'prepared to let an innocent 12 year old die', that is not sitting well with me.

Dude is getting dog-piled for not falling in with the popular opinion.
 
Krejlooc said:
I'm trying to change his opinion, yes. I'm doing so with my words, which he is free to consider or not. It's his choice whether my words affect him or not. Just as it's choice to heed the words of others or even his own to affirm his beliefs.

That is entirely fair.



I mean it should be apparent that I share the same opinion about yours.



Oh no, now you'll not donate your organs even more. What have I done?!
Click to expand...


Cool, don't need my organs then do you. ;)
 
The Incarnation said:
Perhaps but that got nothing to do with me.

My own father is waiting for a kidney transplant for example.

Thought I value people's freedom of choice, so I'm not trying to guilt trip people into donating their organs.
Click to expand...

No, not trying to guilt trip..just an attempt to add perspective. If it doesn't, then oh well.
 
Miles X said:
What has that got to do with anything? I don't think you are getting what I mean. I'd like a list of people who are not allowed my organs, I just used 'good' as a general term.
Click to expand...

Alright then, are you okay denying your organs to 'good' people because there is a chance they could go to 'bad' people?


GeordieMark said:
No, but its the suggestion he is something of a bad person, or even stupider, 'prepared to let an innocent 12 year old die', that is not sitting well with me.
Click to expand...

Sounds like that's your problem. I didn't call him a bad person either. He's not Stalin.
 
GeordieMark said:
No, but its the suggestion he is something of a bad person, or even stupider, 'prepared to let an innocent 12 year old die', that is not sitting well with me.

Dude is getting dog-piled for not falling in with the popular opinion.
Click to expand...
People are arguing that his choice based on his reasoning is selfish.

Choices can selfish and that's not a personal attack.

You can criticize a choice with attaching a person.
 
GeordieMark said:
No, but its the suggestion he is something of a bad person, or even stupider, 'prepared to let an innocent 12 year old die', that is not sitting well with me.

Dude is getting dog-piled for not falling in with the popular opinion.
Click to expand...

realistic ramifications of one action are not "stupid" no matter how hard they are to deal with.

Further, I don't see anybody personally attacking that dude. Only his decision.
 
GeordieMark said:
No, but its the suggestion he is something of a bad person, or even stupider, 'prepared to let an innocent 12 year old die', that is not sitting well with me.

Dude is getting dog-piled for not falling in with the popular opinion.
Click to expand...

No one is denying him his ability to express his opinion, we are calling out the morality of his opinion & decision. He has responded that he is willing to let someone 'innocent' die so someone 'bad' doesn't receive one of his organs.

How is that not up for a morality debate? And if that's not up for a morality debate, what is?
 
GeordieMark said:
No, but its the suggestion he is something of a bad person, or even stupider, 'prepared to let an innocent 12 year old die', that is not sitting well with me.

Dude is getting dog-piled for not falling in with the popular opinion.
Click to expand...
He is, inarguably prepared to let an innocent 12 year old girl die over this. That's just a fact.

It's also a ridiculous lie (and you know you're lying) to say he is being criticized simply because his opinion is different from most. It's clearly the nature and ramifications of his position that people take issue with.

As far as being a bad person....I'm undecided at best:
Miles X said:
Uh huh, well I don't need you to feel sorry for me, when I'm dead I'll be dead. I don't feel at all bad about the situation personally, the worst thing would be giving some awful person my organs after death.
Click to expand...
It's either bad or unintelligent.

Now someone point out again that it's a choice that is up to him, I haven't seen enough completely pointless posts yet.
 
Shadybiz said:
No, not trying to guilt trip..just an attempt to add perspective. If it doesn't, then oh well.
Click to expand...


Yes it is. Nothing else to it.

That perspective is so obvious it doesn't need to be addressed.

It's just the ultimate in arrogance.

People can change their own minds in time, but you don't value their minds or time. Why value their organs?

It's while they are alive you need to convince people. You're going the wrong way about it, insulting people really isn't going to work.

People are not things, who merely exist to gain your approval.
 
LaserBuddha said:
He is, inarguably prepared to let an innocent 12 year old girl die over this. That's just a fact.

It's also a ridiculous lie (and you know you're lying) to say he is being criticized simply because his opinion is different from most. It's clearly the nature and ramifications of his position.

As far as being a bad person....I'm undecided at best:

It's either bad or unintelligent.
Click to expand...

So are you, on a daily basis, because you'd rather have internet.
 
Miles X said:
You try to make it all so personal "you would sacrafice" no I wouldn't, I'm dead, I'm not sacraficing anyone. What I do with my body is not really anybody elses business. There are plenty of other scenarios out there where it's in your control to save a life but don't, don't act all high and mighty.



Don't worry you didn't make me feel bad ^^ I've already gone over the scenario in my head enough times that my opinion will never change unless I get some sort of say over who it goes to.

FYI, in the UK, people that abuse their bodies are not 'blacklisted' or even put further down the list.
Click to expand...

If they continue to abuse their bodies then yes they are.

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Liver-transplant/Pages/When-it-should-be-done.aspx

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Lung-transplant/Pages/Introduction.aspx
 
I feel like it's such a shame we can't have donate checklists. I'd totally put on there to give my organs to all children, to appease myself. Donald Trump too, seen as ya'll are all loving!

NoblesseOblige said:
Well clearly they're not things worthy of being saved either. At least not in the eyes of those who choose against donating their organs.
Click to expand...

Some are, some aren't.
 
Tabris said:
No one is denying him his ability to express his opinion, we are calling out the morality of his opinion & decision. He has responded that he is willing to let someone 'innocent' die so someone 'bad' doesn't receive one of his organs.

How is that not up for a morality debate? And if that's not up for a morality debate, what is?
Click to expand...

Its a completely unfair question. We all know you don't get to choose anyway. You've come up with a situation to which only one answer will really be acceptable, but doesn't really reflect the situation. Its the other side of the same coin to the argument he is making about not wanting his organs to go to a bad person.
 
GeordieMark said:
You've come up with a situation to which only one answer will really be acceptable
Click to expand...

the situation is viable. If one can't say no to that situation, then they have to come face to face with the probability that they are directly making a choice that results in said situation.

A 12 year old dying because they didn't receive an organ donation is hardly inconceivable. In fact, it happens multiple times every day across the world.
 
Miles X said:
I feel like it's such a shame we can't have donate checklists. I'd totally put on there to give my organs to all children, to appease myself. Donald Trump too, seen as ya'll are all loving!
Click to expand...

You do understand that organs have to match the receiving party on a specific set of parameters otherwise they get rejected, right? We can't add so much overhead to the process. Matching organ to recipient is difficult enough, but then having to add more checks to make sure the (now dead) donor was okay with it? I'm sorry, things are a bit too chaotic for that sort of pragmatism. So I'll ask you again. Are you okay losing a 'good person' because there's a chance of saving a 'bad one'?

The Incarnation said:
Oh hey, here's the guilt trip and shaming again. It really doesn't work. Try another tact.
Click to expand...

Not really guilt tripping when I'm fully confident you're incapable of feeling guilt associated to this. Just pointing out you're a mighty fine hypocrite for having a negative opinion of people in general while denying the opportunity to help or save someone. But it's okay, we were all edgy and cynical at one point in life.
 
GeordieMark said:
Its the other side of the same coin to the argument he is making about not wanting his organs to go to a bad person.
Click to expand...

Yes, and he's picking the morally wrong side (judged by your peers within this arena) of that coin.

He understood the scenario presented, and with those parameters, decided not donating his organs to a potential bad person is worth an innocent child potentially dying.
 
Krejlooc said:
My mother would have died before I was born without an organ donation. I owe my existence to some anonymous organ donor.
Click to expand...

So that gives you the right to insult, guilt trip and shame people who don't see things your way?

Good job you're not a Doctor. "I save lives, therefore I'm better than you" That's basically your attitude.

Going as far as insulting my so-called political leanings for some reason.

When the tree is corrupt, I'm not going to eat it's fruit.
 
NoblesseOblige said:
You do understand that organs have to match the receiving party on a specific set of parameters otherwise they get rejected, right? We can't add so much overhead to the process. Matching organ to recipient is difficult enough, but then having to add more checks to make sure the (now dead) donor was okay with it? I'm sorry, things are a bit too chaotic for that sort of pragmatism. So I'll ask you again. Are you okay losing a 'good person' because there's a chance of saving a 'bad one'?
Click to expand...

Don't understand what's so difficult, if the donar coming up is 'bad' he/she simply doesn't get it and it goes next in line, if that isn't possible then they go to nobody. I'm sure if they implemented such a choice we would adapt to getting them to the right people.

I've already given my answer on the last part, yes.

Tabris said:
Yes, and he's picking the morally wrong side (judged by your peers within this arena) of that coin.

He understood the scenario presented, and with those parameters, decided not donating his organs to a potential bad person is worth an innocent child potentially dying.
Click to expand...

In your opinion of course, you're not the measure of what is and isn't morally right and wrong.
 
I see "religious purposes" as a potential reason in the OP, but what religion is against organ donation? I know the Catholic church has said it is one of the greatest things you can do as a Catholic. What if any other religions against it?
 
Krejlooc said:
the situation is viable. If one can't say no to that situation, then they have to come face to face with the probability that they are directly making a choice that results in said situation.

A 12 year old dying because they didn't receive an organ donation is hardly inconceivable. In fact, it happens multiple times every day across the world.
Click to expand...

You could equally argue, just as he did, that the organ could go to someone totally undeserving. That happens too. Its a contrived argument that totally disregards the fact that his organs go where they are sent without him having any say.

There are a so many better ways to convince someone to be a donor without trying to paint them as someone who is happy for kids to die because of their selfishness.

Tabris said:
Yes, and he's picking the morally wrong side (judged by your peers within this arena) of that coin.

He understood the scenario presented, and with those parameters, decided not donating his organs to a potential bad person is worth an innocent child potentially dying.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a fair question in the first place though.
 
The Incarnation said:
So that gives you the right to insult, guilt trip and shame people who don't see things your way?
Click to expand...

The rules of discussion. I have a right to voice my opinion.

Good job you're not a Doctor. "I save lives, therefore I'm better than you" That's basically your attitude.
Click to expand...

I work in the medical industry.

And where have I said I'm better than anybody?
 
Finally registered as a donor thanks to this thread. No real reason not to, and it feels good to know you'll help people out after you're gone.
 
I read this whole thread and now I think I need a brain transplant

not Miles X's though, for several reasons
 
If you are really against organ donation and nothing will change your mind, that is your thing. It is your body, your decision. But it is fair for people to call you out for it or try to convince you for a bit. It is little use to pile on if they have made up their mind after a while.

At least they have given it thought and have their reasons (whether you or I agree with it or not). The biggest issue is a large amount of people who don't give it any thought and because of that are not a donor, even if they wouldn't have an issue with it.

The system needs to be designed so that the most amount of people will become a donor, while still giving people who don't want to the option of not being one.
 
GeordieMark said:
You could equally argue, just as he did, that the organ could go to someone totally undeserving. That happens too. Its a contrived argument that totally disregards the fact that his organs go where they are sent without him having any say.
Click to expand...

Is anybody in this topic not facing this situation? Of course my organs could go to someone "undeserving." Hence the proposition - is the probablity that your organs will go to someone "bad" outweighing the realistic possibility of a 12 year old dying?

Keeping in mind that many of the reasons people have claimed someone would be "undeserving" of organ donation ITT are already reflected in the organ donor process. We actually try to weed out "undeserving" people from getting organ donations, like criminals and drug abusers.

There are a so many better ways to convince someone to be a donor without trying to paint them as someone who is happy for kids to die because of their selfishness.
Click to expand...

So try spouting some, then.
 
criesofthepast said:
I see "religious purposes" as a potential reason in the OP, but what religion is against organ donation? I know the Catholic church has said it is one of the greatest things you can do as a Catholic. What if any other religions against it?
Click to expand...

I think Jehovah's witnesses, but I might be mistaken.

EDIT: Ok, I see multiple sites that mention they aren't opposed, but the blood must be drained from the organ before transplantation. Any Jehovah's witnesses here to confirm?
 
old said:
1. It is done in a way that the treating doctor does not know that I am a donor. They only find out after a reasonable amount of time after I have passed. I don't care if that threatens the viability of the organs. My concern is I have the best chance to live not if someone else lives.
Click to expand...

Doctors will never let someone die because they're a donor because they don't check for donor status as part of the triage system. You also have to be braindead for the most part. It's a very narrow set of conditions. If you have died you're for the most part no longer eligible for donating.

2. Only donate immediately after death if I'm injured/killed in some horrifically mangled way (i.e. car crash) that prevents any possibility of continuing life, resuscitation, or aforementioned "miraculous" resurrection. If I flip my corvette and get bifurcated on a picket fence, then have at my organs or whatever other parts who can pick up off the road. At that point there's no goddam way I'll ever be using them again.
Click to expand...

Nobody has come back from braindeath. Not a single person. A doctor is not going to kill someone that can be saved just for organs.

3. I get control on who could receive my organs. I wouldn't donate them to hospital or whatever. I'd donate them to a trust under my direction that controls who could receive them.
Click to expand...

Where would this trust hold your organs, exactly? You also can't sell organs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Poll
Do you pick your nose?
2
50
529
ForAcademicPurposes replied
Who are your heroes in life?
2
74
3K
Boozeroony replied
What are your thoughts on humility?
32
1K
CGNoire replied
What Are You Eating?
32
854
Darkmakaimura replied
  • Poll
How do you like your steak cooked?
2 3
130
865
gimmmick replied
Top Bottom