Meat and bones.

Yes I'm well aware there's an organ shortage. I would be over the moon if I, or someone I know needed an organ and got one, but I don't think I could, in good conscience, take an organ knowing that the person never gave me their permission - much like I wouldn't want mine to be taken without being consulted first.

Genuine question, but do you have kids yourself?

No I don't.

Difficult to ask you when you're dead.

Hence it would be the family's decision if the individual wasn't on the register.

I don't think it should be the family's decision. Having just lost a child, they would, understandably, be under some emotional stress, which is hardly a time for a good, well reasoned decision. However, I dont think they should be left out of the loop; rather, they should be given an opportunity to express reasons for not wanting their child's organs used to an independent (and not unsympathetic) arbiter who would make a decision based on what has been heard, making it a case for conscientious objection only (religious reasons allowed for).

For fear of agreeing with lumbthelesser, that sounds like quite a sensible plan.

Has lumbthelesser been threatening you already?

Yes..... the organs will be available shortly

Ok, serious point here and one that I am not presenting as concrete, but the person themselves is gone. That essence, that personality that makes a living creature different to say, a rock, is no longer there. Surely it's that component that's what matters. Whilst the person is alive, then the body is the carrier for that, ergo it is a) important and b) that persons prerogative what happens to it, in turn with children the responsibility of the parent / guardian.

There's a quote from G.K. Chesterton. It's on the subject of tradition, but I believe it to be applicable in this instance:



How can we ever end up with a system that favours the rights of dead over the rights of the living, and in particular the opportunity to go on living.

I have to agree.

My interest in this is more that the subject tends highlight how people deal with death, moreso than anything else. TBH the whole organ donation is secondary and could easily be resolved if they make breakthroughs in using stem cells for organ regeneration.

Talking of which, check here Timesonline clicky

Edit: From council gravy train to stem cell trachea regeneration. Good thread.

The "rights of the living"? You don't have any rights over another person. That's called fascism.

Your rights end when they start to infringe on the rights of another person, you don't have any "rights" over something that belongs to someone else, hence they have to volunteer it.

It's that sort of mentality that got the ID cards project started, somehow victims of crime had the "right" to force everyone in the country to hand over their DNA, finger prints etc - when they have no such right, because it wasn't their finger prints or DNA to volunteer

Ultimately the individual has the decision over what happens to things that are theirs, and I'm sorry but they were born with those organs, not you, so it's their decision and not yours.

There is a fundamental fallacy with your argument. What we are dealing with is no longer a person, it is a corpse. That is a massive distinction, and central to the whole ISSUE. "The Human" (and in turn any concept of Human Rights) ceases to exist at point of death, it's simply a large slab of meat, nothing more.

There is also a substantial difference between this and say ID cards. With ID Cards, we are talking about a system of control being implemented, largely for the sake of control, on the offchance that it assists in a possible event. What I suggest is a system, that if it has to be implemented, is on a case by case basis (unlike ID cards), and as a direct consequence saves a human life.

You're dead right there Harriet Harman is next going to try and get 50% dead people on the cabinet, so they are fairly represented too.