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

Originally Posted by liberalminority

disagree until the system is better policed.

right now some doctors will not save someone in order to take their organs since they are valuable.

This is the reason right here why most don't check the donate organs part. I admit I didn't check it until my last DL. Maybe I just don't care anymore. IDK. But in a society where doctors would rather charge you to keep you comfortable than cure anything, this perception of medicine in America will be the number 1 roadblock to people donating organs. And rightly so.

Originally Posted by HonestJoe

Are there actually any people who refuse to be organ donors on moral or emotive grounds (as opposed to just not getting around to signing up) who wouldn't also refuse to be a recipient on the same basis?

Organ donations that require the death of another are totally immoral. People begin to hope that someone dies to save another. That seems completely wrong. Organ donation that does not require death, such as a kidney or bone marrow are ok in my eyes.

I absolutely agree. If someone refuses to donate, I think they shouldn't be able to receive. I don't want anyone else's organ, which is why I don't feel guilty about not wanting to donate.

Originally Posted by Dispondent

Organ donations that require the death of another are totally immoral. People begin to hope that someone dies to save another. That seems completely wrong. Organ donation that does not require death, such as a kidney or bone marrow are ok in my eyes.

I have no problem with either as long as it's strictly voluntary.

Originally Posted by gamewell45

i don't think they are being hypocritical; some people have an inordinate fear of being cut open when they die and having the organs harvested; some cannot for religious reasons. Some could care less either way; just depends on their feelings and religious convictions.

If you volunteer to donate your organs there should be no strings or conditions attached to it.

Religious reasons are irrelevant. You can still be an organ donor, religion is a silly excuse people use. A better excuse would be medical reasons. That would be fine.

Originally Posted by HonestJoe

Are there actually any people who refuse to be organ donors on moral or emotive grounds (as opposed to just not getting around to signing up) who wouldn't also refuse to be a recipient on the same basis?

People would accept an organ if they knew it would save their life...but if they were given the chance to return the favor, a few people might refuse, and that is, IMO, selfish.

Originally Posted by Jason Bourne

No, they should not be banned. Many people who receive blood transfusions are not blood donors. The same ethical principles should and do apply to organ transplantation.

Blood is in good supply, and doesn't require someone to die first. Organs are different, we need them more than we need blood as we have a shortage of donors.

Originally Posted by Frogger

Okay,Makedde, and people who don't pay taxes should be banned from receiving benefits paid for by taxes.

That would work if I actually received benefits from the government, Frogger, which I don't.

Originally Posted by jedimiller

Of course not Mak. That's nonsense because the donators are doing it on their own will and the receivers are not.

People who donate are giving the gift of life. People who accept an organ and who are not registered donors are simply taking. They are giving nothing in return and that is wrong.

Originally Posted by Hummingbird

Well, there are the Jehovah Witnesses who don't believe in donating blood and will not accept a blood transfusion even to save their own life or even their child. The JW told me they believe blood is 'precious'........ well yeah, it is. It saves lives....

JW's are stupid. If you need blood, accept it! It will save your life, stop praying to your God and take what the doctor is offering you. If you refuse something that could save your life you are pretty (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up, IMO.

Originally Posted by Kranes56

What if somebody is sick? Or can't give due to an illness? They won't be able to recieve organs.

People should be excluded for medical reasons, that is fine. But for those people who are capable of donating, they should not accept an organ from another person yet refuse to return the gift when they pass.

Originally Posted by dragonfly

I have no problem with either as long as it's strictly voluntary.

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

Originally Posted by Kranes56

HIV/AIDS proabably.

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.

Originally Posted by Makedde

This came up on a Facebook page and I actually agreed with the person who said it.

If someone is opposed to organ donation, and is not a registered organ donor and has no intention of becoming one, why should they be permitted to accept an organ from a deceased donor?
Is this an example of taking but giving nothing in return?
And isn't it hypocritical to refuse to donate your own organs to save someones life, but be okay with taking someone else's organs to save your own?

It kinda makes me angry that people will take something from another person, but would refuse to do the same thing for someone else. Its selfish, IMO.

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...

Originally Posted by Thisoneguy

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.