People Who Refuse To Donate Their Organs Should Be Banned From Recieving One

I can respect your view. I just don't share it.

 

I didn't think so, but it appears it can invade via in situ hybridization... spec when there is also a presence of HHV-6... but even then only typically one... and it is a pretty rare occurrence they are screening for anyway with cornea tissue from anyone.

So there can still be donation. Don't know how likely they are to give an aids patient an organ either... but... regardless... I am not suggesting that once you need one you fill out the card... I am saying if you don't fill out the card you don't get one if you suddenly need one.

 

Yes, that's fair. People should not get more than what they put in.

 

Interesting... It makes sense at first glance, but think about it, what if someone has a blood disease or an STD. etc. Something manageable so they could live a full life but could kill someone if they got an organ and didn't treat the disease right away and other complications (Saw this on House once lol)

Lets say they knew about this before getting a license, so they can't donate their organs or were an organ donor but aren't not. Should they really be deprived of an organ to prolong their life because of a disease?

Maybe that's just one exception...

 

There can be exceptions. I am referring to people who refuse to donate their organs because they are selfish - and that is anyone who uses the religion excuse or any other silly reason.

 

Perhaps blood is in good supply in Australia, but not in the US.

That aside, the principal remains the same. You do not withold medical treatment simply because the recipient hasn't prepaid by donating an organ.

 

What is selfish about not wanting to donate one's organs? There is no moral imperative which states that one's body is the common property of the group.

 

I am not donating anything. It gives me the creeps.

 

Blood is not in good supply here, either. Not only are Australians too selfish to give the gift of life when they die, they are also too selfish to take time out to make a lifesaving blood donation.

I don't want selfish people being rewarded.

 

It is selfish to want to hold onto something useless when you no longer need it. You could save nearly ten lives with those organs, instead people want to take them to the grave and deny others the chance at a decent, healthy life.

Then I hope you don't need a transplant one day because I would be opposed to your receiving one.

 

In Australia, I'm assuming that people still 'own' their own bodies and can do with them as they see fit for the most part? Give your blood, donate your organs. It isn't your concern what others do with theirs. What do you want to deny them? Organs if THEY need them?? Is that it?

 

You don't get to make that determination. That will be me, my doctor and my insurance company.

 

So you'd advocate witholding a blood transfusion which could save a life purely because the recipient wasn't a blood donor?

 

You're losing.

 

A blood donation isn't the same, Jason. Blood replaces itself. You can donate blood and you'll still be happy and healthy. With an organ, its different. They don't replace themselves, and many organs we can't live without. We need to hold onto those organs for as long as possible. When we die, we no longer need them to keep us alive, so they could be put to good use in someone else's body.

I am not a blood donor because I am anemic. I'd likely get very sick if I gave even the tiniest amount of blood. But I wouldn't refuse a transfusion if I needed one. I am an organ donor, and that is the greatest, most selfless gift anyone could ever give another person. It is repugnant to me that some people would refuse to save another persons life simply because they don't want to be 'cut open' when they die.

 

You aren't required to... just don't ask others to provide you any should you need them.

If it is creepy then it should be equally creepy when it could save your life.

 

Not a blood donor heh? Anemic? I'll bet you could give some blood if they really needed it. But you wouldn't refuse a transfusion if you needed it? I'll just bet you wouldn't. But why should you be given a transfusion if you're anemic. YOU COULD have done something about that before you got sick. How about a liver or a kidney. You could give one of those right now to make up for your lack of blood donations. And you only have to give up a PIECE of your liver...and you got TWO kidneys. How about an eye...you got two. an arm? You could manage. You're feeling so good about your unselfishness. How about putting your money where your mouth is.

 

A person cannot donate a liver, just part of it, and you can't donate a kidney unless you are healthy.
I couldn't donate blood even if I wanted to - and I would love to, but its not an option, regretfully. I pass the blood bank often and I wish I could go in but I'd never be allowed to.

I can give blood though - when I have a blood test. That's all you can get from me.

 

oh. I see. You REALLY can't do these things but you believe the rest of us should be obliged to do it even if it is against our wills and you are exempt. right? And even though you can't contribute due to your health...how convenient...YOU would deny ME an organ donation. I, uh, don't suppose you see anything wrong with this picture. Do you?

 

I give blood regularly, and am an organ donor. That means when I am dead. I have also donated bone marrow... which is obscenely painful.

It isn't about "I am a better person than you." It is about the idea that you will take if you need but never provide, even post-mortem. It is shallow and selfish... and... liberal. Everyone else has to do the hard thing, and you feel entitled. I guess that is why I find myself shocked Mak and I agree.

If you are willing to say you would die rather than take an organ donors tissue to save your life, I have no beef with you. If you think organ donation is "creepy" when you can't use them anymore, but having cadaver parts inserted to keep you alive is awesome... own your hypocrisy. Wear it. Don't make me pull it out of that dark corner and expose it.

 

That's quite the double standard Mak. You've said, "It is repugnant to me that some people would refuse to save another persons life simply because they don't want to be 'cut open' when they die." Isn't equally repugnant to have the availability to save someone's life but to not do so because of misplaced self righteousness?

Fortunately, more compassionate and rational minds prevail.

 

No one HAS to do anything. If you choose to give then put caveats on it are you really the generous caring person you claim you are?? I hope never to need a transplant but if i do, I'll get one if it's available and my insurance will cover it. I won't be using cadaver parts. They don't work. I hope i don't get one of yours. Wouldn't that be a hoot.

 

Exactly. Organ donation is a gift, not a requirement. If one choses to be caring enough to donate their organs, fine. If not, no problem.

 

Yes... yes they most certainly work. It is where most of them come from. They are only viable for a short time, which is why people are dying waiting for them because people like you think the idea is "creepy"... unless of course they need one.

@ Jason
If that helps you sleep better... SWEET! I assume you know how to do math.

 

/me makes note to stipulate in the event of my death my organs can only go to an organ donor.