Opt-out forms for organ 'robbery'
-
Originally posted by fymk:
So we really have no argument then, I am also some aspects of the current policy. We don't see mandatory blood drives do we?
I am arguing this on principle of having full consent with knowledge. Like I said I think organ donors [b] who gave full consent to their bodies being used are doing a good deed. Nothing against them.
I have an issue with bodies being automatically cannibalised for organs regardless of whether the family or deceased have the knowledge or not. It just stinks of SOYLENT GREEN except they feed humans with humans. [/b]
However some of your other posts have raised other concerns. It seems you are mixing up your distaste of the current policy with what saving lives is all about, with all your previous posts about it just being too bad for people with organ failure and what have you not. In fact many of your posts seem to me to be highly dismissive of an issue with has a lot of moral and humanitarian implications... which is prehaps highly contradictory to your own stance of principle of having choice in this affair.
If it is our right to all be selfish about this issue, then we really have no say in a greater power then us deciding to be selfish for their own needs and imposing such a policy and saying "too bad" for us.
What is your personal stance however, on being an post-mortem organ donor? In the same vein of argument, would we all choose not donate blood in protest if the government one day decides to choose the easy way out with keeping the blood bank in stock?
The current policy may be screwed up, however in working against it one must realize that they do not make another mistake in the opposite direction... we don't stop policing just because some policemen are corrupt, or pull out all our teeth because some are decayed. -
What a piece of crappy argument that violates the right of a person to consent to the use of his body.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Looking at the pros and cons
If auto opt out: Organs wasted, lives lost
If auto opt in: The dead person relative is not happy. Lives saved.
Looking from tis view, I think we should set auto opt in :p
As much as I empathise with those on the waiting list , I cannot help but think as a human being once alive , I might get treated like some machinery to be automatically taken apart if I had not opted out for the so call superior right to life.
You forget a person had to die to get there. Grieving families may well block doctors from harvesting the organs and that will not help anything. If the person signed a consent prior to death , the families will respect wishes of the dead .
You show lack of respect for the grieving people the person left behind. You show lack of respect for the dead person who was once a breathing living human being. That really makes it all wrong. -
I am lazy, because it doesn't seems critical
I just drag and drag and drag. Tat is wat the common people will do
About how do u proclaim people as dead etc, is pretty medical. I thought it is worldwide accepted..What a piece of crappy argument that violates the right of a person to consent to the use of his body.
Com'on, I put it tis way. I treat dead bodies as just bodies waiting to be burnt. It is useless. U say tat I view dead people as machines, but I am surprised u view rotting flesh as treasure. I value life, and tat is why I feel organs should be donated to preserve lives. Wat do u view life as ? Is it worth more than some ideals or some people unhappiness ?
As much as I empathise with those on the waiting list , I cannot help but think as a human being once alive , I might get treated like some machinery to be automatically taken apart if I had not opted out for the so call superior right to life.
You forget a person had to die to get there. Grieving families may well block doctors from harvesting the organs and that will not help anything. If the person signed a consent prior to death , the families will respect wishes of the dead .
You show lack of respect for the grieving people the person left behind. You show lack of respect for the dead person who was once a breathing living human being. That really makes it all wrong.
U talk about people dying etc and how sad it is, but do u know u r killing people by asking organs to be burnt. U r making more familes grieve about their dead relatives. They could have lived and the world a happier place. But u dash hopes of the living but burning the dead. Wat is the diff between depriving people from living and sacrificing people for deities ? I don't wna tto be involved in religion here but it seems to me throwing away your organs like tat for religion is making their god seems evil.
As said, the benefit of the system is people lives r saved. The problem is the family is not happy. Wat seems to be more important ? -
The Fatwa was issued by MUIS telling them it is alright to donate certain parts of their organs - how come muslims still get autoexemptions? Want it to be fair ? EVERYONE PLAY ON THE SAME GROUND since we all cannot be selfish regardless of what we believe in. Yes I am being sarcastic. So if it is such a great humanitarian effort so let's argue on a higher level now - how come one group gets exempt while the rest get opted in? Selfishness?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:If it is our right to all be selfish about this issue, then we really have no say in a greater power then us deciding to be selfish for their own needs and imposing such a policy and saying "too bad" for us.
What is your personal stance however, on being an post-mortem organ donor? In the same vein of argument, would we all choose not donate blood in protest if the government one day decides to choose the easy way out with keeping the blood bank in stock?
I have suspicions of cadaveric organ donations. I already pasted a link in the USA case where they removed the guy's organs without following procedures. How is anyone to say that it won't happen in Singapore? I have other reasons to an auto opt in policy.
Like I said , there are people who want to donate with full knowledge that they want to do some good even after their demise - well I think it is good of them . And as for your argument about protesting blood donations - come on , everytime the blood bank runs short , they appeal to the public . They have education drives to tell people about blood donation etc.
Why not the same for organ donations? Too cheapskate to educate the public on the procedures of harvesting an organ? So opt for the easy way in and auto opt everyone regardless of whether they are aware of it or not? -
Don't blame me, blame the very logic we assume our rights on.Originally posted by gLc:Dont you think your acting in a very selfish manner? Yes, I agree with you to a great extent that we all should have the right to choose, but what makes you think that in this instance the automatically opt in thing is better, isnt that just another one sided statement from you that one is better than another?
Yet again, some think its selfish, others think that it would be selfish of us, ourselves to not donate our organs away, have you ever wondered once that the body which once belonged to me, will never get buried in one piece, and also how much have they done to educate the older generation on this organ donating thingy.
Lastly, as much as others might say, as long as you have this "mental block" in your brain, following what others does without your own will to think, thoroughly lacking in brain density and judgement, is what the government wants, people like you.
Unfortunately if we embrace objective rights, we cannot avoid embracing objective truths.
As much as we might like to think that a lot the choices within our rights are neither wrong or right or worse or better, when one takes time to look at them we realize it's not the case. It seems that yes, we have the right to choose, but that choice has very objective implications as well, sometimes there IS a right and wrong answer.
I could up it this way: if I came across a person dying on the side of the road in need of help I have the full right to choose to help him or not. However it does not follow that both choices are not better then the other.
If we attempt to say that a certain thing that stems from our rights is completely subjective (especially if it comes to such an important issue like organ donation), we actually demolish the very validity of the right to choose that we begin with... for if we choose to believe our actions and choices have no consquences... then on what grounds do we make our actions and choices to begin with?
Sounds a bit confusing, but it follows simply that we cannot say that it's our right to choose and then follow through and say that neither choice is more or less right (especially in such issues) all things considered... we would be contradicting ourselves.
So yes, we have rights, but rights hardly mean an arbitary or ignorant use of choice. One can just be as mindless exercising his rights as a person who doefully follows the main line... in this case neither is truly in a better state then the other. It is a greater horror that we use our rights to inflict more pain and suffering simply because we could, and wanted to choose without weighting fully everything... at least the doeful follower is amoral in the sense he had no real control over his actions.
What I am saying quite clearly is that I do not want people to just toe the line... but thinking just because we have the right to choose hence it's alright for us to choose flippantly and avoid the rather difficult fact that we ought to make some choices and not others is another great evil as well... an evil we often pass off as good in the name of "freedom". -
Doesn't seem to be standard the way they removed organs from one dead person in USA. The coroner's declaration of the removal of organs? HOMICIDE. So have fun with that.Originally posted by stupidissmart:I am lazy, because it doesn't seems critical I just drag and drag and drag. Tat is wat the common people will do
About how do u proclaim people as dead etc, is pretty medical. I thought it is worldwide accepted..
Com'on, I put it tis way. I treat dead bodies as just bodies waiting to be burnt. It is useless. U say tat I view dead people as machines, but I am surprised u view rotting flesh as treasure. I value life, and tat is why I feel organs should be donated to preserve lives. Wat do u view life as ? Is it worth more than some ideals or some people unhappiness ?
U talk about people dying etc and how sad it is, but do u know u r killing people by asking organs to be burnt. U r making more familes grieve about their dead relatives. They could have lived and the world a happier place. But u dash hopes of the living but burning the dead. Wat is the diff between depriving people from living and sacrificing people for deities ?
Rotting flesh still nourish the plant life and support insect life which forms part of the eco system . More plants the merrier - climate warming is now coming and we need to counter it with plant life . How is that for an argument? It is as ridiculous as yours.
Like I said , I didn't kill them. The nature of the disease did.
So just because someone dies from a lack of organs , it is somebody's elses fault for not donating their organs ? What a load of crap. You might as well say people who are gluttons are responsible for world hunger.
Don't change the argument. It is about the right of knowledge to consent to one's body being used. -
As far as I know about Bioethics which pertain to organ donation . It's a gray area . But to remove it without the explicit consent of a person or families who might have a different ideal due to their beliefs - well that is outrageous.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Don't blame me, blame the very logic we assume our rights on.
Unfortunately if we embrace objective rights, we cannot avoid embracing objective truths.
As much as we might like to think that a lot the choices within our rights are neither wrong or right or worse or better, when one takes time to look at them we realize it's not the case. It seems that yes, we have the right to choose, but that choice has very objective implications as well, sometimes there IS a right and wrong answer.
I could up it this way: if I came across a person dying on the side of the road in need of help I have the full right to choose to help him or not. However it does not follow that both choices are not better then the other.
If we attempt to say that a certain thing that stems from our rights is completely subjective (especially if it comes to such an important issue like organ donation), we actually demolish the very validity of the right to choose that we begin with... for if we choose to believe our actions and choices have no consquences... then on what grounds do we make our actions and choices to begin with?
Sounds a bit confusing, but it follows simply that we cannot say that it's our right to choose and then follow through and say that neither choice is more or less right (especially in such issues) all things considered... we would be contradicting ourselves.
So yes, we have rights, but rights hardly mean an arbitary or ignorant use of choice. One can just be as mindless exercising his rights as a person who doefully follows the main line... in this case neither is truly in a better state then the other. It is a greater horror that we use our rights to inflict more pain and suffering simply because we could, and wanted to choose without weighting fully everything... at least the doeful follower is amoral in the sense he had no real control over his actions.
What I am saying quite clearly is that I do not want people to just toe the line... but thinking just because we have the right to choose hence it's alright for us to choose flippantly and avoid the rather difficult fact that we ought to make some choices and not others is another great evil as well... an evil we often pass off as good in the name of "freedom".
If anyone who truly wants to be a cadaveric donor - they make the effort to sign on like my friends who had the orange organ donor card prior to the automatic scheme.
If those who cannot be bothered to even sign on the simple piece of paper stating they will donate their organs and YET want the convenience of an auto opt in in the midst of calling objecting parties selfish , that is a whole lot of hypocritical crap.
At least I know , I bothered to be on the bone marrow donation list because I know it is hard to get matches and it is a live donorship in where I have the choice to go through a painful procedure to extract a marrow. I explicitly consented because they bothered to let me know how the whole procedure is like if I am a match ,and they have my name on record .
I don't know what is life after death like and I sure don't feel like risking any of my organs unless it is a family member whom I love and treasure. I also don't entertain the idea of an accidental removal which might cause my death . I have alot of suspicions. No one to reassure me except tell me that I am selfish . Hilarious.
So here I am thinking in terms of those who do not have much knowledge about such things like the auto opt in and they deserve the right to know what happens to their body after death. So they should relinquish their selfish rights just because the government and health authorities are too lazy to campaign for organ donations? -
Doesn't seem to be standard the way they removed organs from one dead person in USA. The coroner's declaration of the removal of organs? HOMICIDE. So have fun with that.
I do not know why does a mistake from the other side of the world = to doctors gonna kill u when u sign for donating organs here. I heard of stories of doctors killing patient or making major mistakes as well. So we don't see doctors ? I heard of cars accidents and people dead. So don't sit bus and cars ? I heard of people go out and strike by lightning. So don't go out ?Rotting flesh still nourish the plant life and support insect life which forms part of the eco system . More plants the merrier - climate warming is now coming and we need to counter it with plant life . How is that for an argument? It is as ridiculous as yours.
Techincally u r wrong since your body is burn to ash.Like I said , I didn't kill them. The nature of the disease did.
Nah, u just watch them die without lifting a finger. U r not a murderer but u r heartlessSo just because someone dies from a lack of organs , it is somebody's elses fault for not donating their organs ? What a load of crap. You might as well say people who are gluttons are responsible for world hunger.
If u ask me, I think it is selfish to burn your body rather than donating it...
Don't change the argument. It is about the right of knowledge to consent to one's body being used. And u could have saved a life but u refuse and let people die.
About right of knowledge, I already say tat there is publicity. And as said before the benefit of the system is lives r safe. The problem is family member r not happy. Tat is an important argument tat u need to consider as well. U cannot throw away tis consideration
If u want I can out it in more elaborate form for u to consider it more seriously.
Wat is the potential problem of auto opt out ? People who want to donate their organs did not fill the form for opting in. The consequences for tis action is tat un necessary organs r lost and lives r indirectly lost because of tis.
Wat is the potential problem of auto opt in ? People who wanna opt out did not fill in the form for opting out. The consequences is tat the family members r not happy about the decision. But the organs donated gave another a chance to live and make their loves one happy. Obviously a life preserved bring much more happiness than an organ lost from the dead. So overall it still bring a positive effect to society.
U haveto consider from tis viewpoint as well -
You are barking up the wrong tree, it seems that in your haste to point out what is currently wrong with the system, you miss out the rather obvious fact that I am agreeing with you on most of your points on what is wrong.Originally posted by fymk:As far as I know about Bioethics which pertain to organ donation . It's a gray area . But to remove it without the explicit consent of a person or families who might have a different ideal due to their beliefs - well that is outrageous.
If anyone who truly wants to be a cadaveric donor - they make the effort to sign on like my friends who had the orange organ donor card prior to the automatic scheme.
If those who cannot be bothered to even sign on the simple piece of paper stating they will donate their organs and YET want the convenience of an auto opt in in the midst of calling objecting parties selfish , that is a whole lot of hypocritical crap.
At least I know , I bothered to be on the bone marrow donation list because I know it is hard to get matches and it is a live donorship in where I have the choice to go through a painful procedure to extract a marrow. I explicitly consented because they bothered to let me know how the whole procedure is like if I am a match ,and they have my name on record .
I don't know what is life after death like and I sure don't feel like risking any of my organs unless it is a family member whom I love and treasure. I also don't entertain the idea of an accidental removal which might cause my death . I have alot of suspicions. No one to reassure me except tell me that I am selfish . Hilarious.
So here I am thinking in terms of those who do not have much knowledge about such things like the auto opt in and they deserve the right to know what happens to their body after death. So they should relinquish their selfish rights just because the government and health authorities are too lazy to campaign for organ donations?
What I am not agreeing on however, is your rather flippant attitude towards opting out purely on matter of principle. Granted it is your right and you have your reasons- HOWEVER one is getting the impression that you have loaded your dice in this case to only roll one result.
If it is really such a grey area as you suggest, I seriously doubt you would be making some rather dubious value judgements in your recent posts.
So you have your suspisions... are you going to actually clarify them or just keep mentioning your distrust them and building your entire justifications on it? I do not apperciate people getting accidently (or deliberately) killed for their organs, but it seems that to me a lot of your posts are bordering on paranoia. Or are you just assuming and basing your position the worst without considering the median reality of the issue?
Given your fixation on SOLVENT GREEN, it seems your impression of our doctors is that they are under some directive to speed the death of people to harvest their organs. I wonder if this is an proper picture of things.
Industry laxness and human error has contributed to the air crashes of otherwise totally airworthy airframes, but I wonder if we ought to get all reved up about distrusting the airline industry because of that.
What I have also failed to see you adequately adress is the impact of your personal choice on people who suffer from organ failure... in fact you don't really go very far beyond saying "it's just too bad."
True, but I must ask, if it's all too bad... what's stopping the government from considering one day "it's just too bad" if you are seccular and have no officially reconized belief systems from becoming mandantory organ donors?
Thus I find your position contradictory. On one had you appear to be fighting for the humanitarian cause for the intergity of the body but on the other hand are showing a rather inhuman and lopsided, not to mention often dismissive view (i could easily post many statements you have made to proved this) of those to whom organ failure is a very real reality.
In one respect you argue for the human right to choice and control over their own bodies... however it seems you are missing out the very large human aspect of compassion and helping our less fortunate.
If you were truly naturalistic as your "nature takes away" pitch seems to suggest, one would have tp believe in the survival of the fittest/strongest. Since the government is the strongest entity here... what right do we have to begin with? We can resist but there's really no rational reason to get outraged because we all know that choice is an illusion in nature... the only thing that makes a difference is power.
But if you accept that choice is a right, you must find some other means to balance out the big question in your case which is "what about who hope in organ transplant?". Your "it's natural and just too bad" simply does not cut it logically. Nature only knows strenght and no rights. If we were truly naturalistic in thought, we would realize the government harvesting us is no more unnautral then a spider eating a fly.
But of course we do not agree with such notions. Hence, I must urge you to find a better way of accounting for this rather big hole in your position... otherwise you are just saying angry words that make little sense... what rights can we have if everything's just decided on nature? The right to choose would be an illusion, a human construct that can be just as well changed by other humans. Only power and strength would be the key to that. -
Most unfortunately you did not comprehend what I said . I was adding sarcasm with the naturistic arguments - they are just a sarcastic remark.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:You are barking up the wrong tree, it seems that in your haste to point out what is currently wrong with the system, you miss out the rather obvious fact that I am agreeing with you on most of your points on what is wrong.
What I am not agreeing on however, is your rather flippant attitude towards opting out purely on matter of principle. Granted it is your right and you have your reasons- HOWEVER one is getting the impression that you have loaded your dice in this case to only roll one result.
If it is really such a grey area as you suggest, I seriously doubt you would be making some rather dubious value judgements in your recent posts.
So you have your suspisions... are you going to actually clarify them or just keep mentioning your distrust them and building your entire justifications on it? I do not apperciate people getting accidently (or deliberately) killed for their organs, but it seems that to me a lot of your posts are bordering on paranoia. Or are you just assuming and basing your position the worst without considering the median reality of the issue?
Given your fixation on SOLVENT GREEN, it seems your impression of our doctors is that they are under some directive to speed the death of people to harvest their organs. I wonder if this is an proper picture of things.
Industry laxness and human error has contributed to the air crashes of otherwise totally airworthy airframes, but I wonder if we ought to get all reved up about distrusting the airline industry because of that.
What I have also failed to see you adequately adress is the impact of your personal choice on people who suffer from organ failure... in fact you don't really go very far beyond saying "it's just too bad."
True, but I must ask, if it's all too bad... what's stopping the government from considering one day "it's just too bad" if you are seccular and have no officially reconized belief systems from becoming mandantory organ donors?
Thus I find your position contradictory. On one had you appear to be fighting for the humanitarian cause for the intergity of the body but on the other hand are showing a rather inhuman and lopsided, not to mention often dismissive view (i could easily post many statements you have made to proved this) of those to whom organ failure is a very real reality.
In one respect you argue for the human right to choice and control over their own bodies... however it seems you are missing out the very large human aspect of compassion and helping our less fortunate.
If you were truly naturalistic as your "nature takes away" pitch seems to suggest, one would have tp believe in the survival of the fittest/strongest. Since the government is the strongest entity here... what right do we have to begin with? We can resist but there's really no rational reason to get outraged because we all know that choice is an illusion in nature... the only thing that makes a difference is power.
But if you accept that choice is a right, you must find some other means to balance out the big question in your case which is "what about who hope in organ transplant?". Your "it's natural and just too bad" simply does not cut it logically. Nature only knows strenght and no rights. If we were truly naturalistic in thought, we would realize the government harvesting us is no more unnautral then a spider eating a fly.
But of course we do not agree with such notions. Hence, I must urge you to find a better way of accounting for this rather big hole in your position... otherwise you are just saying angry words that make little sense... what rights can we have if everything's just decided on nature? The right to choose would be an illusion, a human construct that can be just as well changed by other humans. Only power and strength would be the key to that.
I already said well it is all good if people are willing to donate their organ with full knowledge of how their bodies will be used . i did recall mentioning it as a good deed .
My point is simple- it is about a right of choice. Those who refuse to be organ donors have the right to refuse on the basis of their beliefs. Those who are willing to donate organs have the right to donate their organs. I am not going against that measure .
Not once did I say I was against organ donation. I am for organ donation provided the deceased had given their consent to it in the first place.
I am arguing against getting automatic organ cadaveric status out of people who might not be aware of the fact that they are going to one. What is so inhumane about that?
What if someone whose religion objects to it but they still remove it because the person did not fill in the opt out form due to ignorance? Just dismiss their beliefs and cannibalise their body because someone else needs organ? Well doesn't it sound like soylent green itself? Just don't tell people how they are eating people likewise don't tell people their bodies are being farmed for organs.
What is so wrong with a volunter opt in system other than you instantly gain a lot potential unsuspecting and unknowing cadaveric donors in the automatic opt in system?
I am on the bone marrow registry. That's fine with me because it's my choice and I have an idea of how they extract donor bone marrows and I am well aware of the risks. I do not go around calling people who do not put themselves on the registry selfish or inhumane.
I believe that people should have a right to make their choice. One incursion on rights like this will come with another in the future . Did you know that some transplantation organisations already started discussing taking fresh organs out of people they deem as unlikely to survive? What makes you think the day has not come yet? It has already came - they taken out organs of a man who was not declared properly as dead in USA. So what makes you think Singapore won't follow suit?
I rather have an opt in system where people sign the papers and agree to donate their organs. Rather than to have some doctors hesitating about taking organs or not in fear of the family and wasting possible donor organs. Rather than to have some family shocked by the plain desecration of a loved one's body because they were ignorant of the policy. Who is to say some of the opt out forms won't be lost in the mail or the system?
So yes , I think going for an volunteer opt in system is better. This way people like you and stupidissmart can go volunteer happily via signing a full consent form with the heavenly bliss of knowing you can save someone. That is not a problem with me. Is that a problem with you? -
It is not only about the family being not happy . It is also about respecting their beliefs. You thrown me so many hypotheticals so now let me throw you one :Originally posted by stupidissmart:
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't seem to be standard the way they removed organs from one dead person in USA. The coroner's declaration of the removal of organs? HOMICIDE. So have fun with that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not know why does a mistake from the other side of the world = to doctors gonna kill u when u sign for donating organs here. I heard of stories of doctors killing patient or making major mistakes as well. So we don't see doctors ? I heard of cars accidents and people dead. So don't sit bus and cars ? I heard of people go out and strike by lightning. So don't go out ? [/quote]
Do you know suspicion? It is a human trait and I do have my suspicions.
Not if I have a burial plot overseas . It can be flown out.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rotting flesh still nourish the plant life and support insect life which forms part of the eco system . More plants the merrier - climate warming is now coming and we need to counter it with plant life . How is that for an argument? It is as ridiculous as yours.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Techincally u r wrong since your body is burn to ash.
Look who is talking. I seem to recall that someone has a strong stance to be a donor but cannot be bothered filling in the forms so an opt in system is more convenient for that person.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like I said , I didn't kill them. The nature of the disease did.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nah, u just watch them die without lifting a finger. U r not a murderer but u r heartless
I am on the bone marrow registry . Are you on it because you know you actually do have to fill up forms? If you are not on it, I have the right to call you heartless as well.
[quote]quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So just because someone dies from a lack of organs , it is somebody's elses fault for not donating their organs ? What a load of crap. You might as well say people who are gluttons are responsible for world hunger.
Don't change the argument. It is about the right of knowledge to consent to one's body being used.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If u ask me, I think it is selfish to burn your body rather than donating it... And u could have saved a life but u refuse and let people die.
About right of knowledge, I already say tat there is publicity. And as said before the benefit of the system is lives r safe. The problem is family member r not happy. Tat is an important argument tat u need to consider as well. U cannot throw away tis consideration
If u want I can out it in more elaborate form for u to consider it more seriously.
Wat is the potential problem of auto opt out ? People who want to donate their organs did not fill the form for opting in. The consequences for tis action is tat un necessary organs r lost and lives r indirectly lost because of tis.
Wat is the potential problem of auto opt in ? People who wanna opt out did not fill in the form for opting out. The consequences is tat the family members r not happy about the decision. But the organs donated gave another a chance to live and make their loves one happy. Obviously a life preserved bring much more happiness than an organ lost from the dead. So overall it still bring a positive effect to society.
U haveto consider from tis viewpoint as well
Hypothetical one
A family strongly believes in a religion which forbids violation of the body unless it is in exceptional cases aka explosions. So to violate any part of their body aka organ transplant - it means going straight to hell for eternity .
Their son believe in this religion as well. However due to their ignorance of an opt out , they did not sign the form to opt out. One day the son gets into an accident. His organs are removed automatically because their religion is not islam and the family was overseas on holiday. So when they return to find their son's body violated - corneas, heart , liver etc removed.
Now that means going straight to hell for eternity and it is a religious belief that you cannot change no matter how good the cause might seem.
Don't tell me that at least someone will be saved and don't try to say it is all good in most religions. It is about affecting other people's religious beliefs especially the part about their son burning in hell for the whole eternity.
____________________________________________________________
In Singapore, if there is any info at all on how many organs a person is entitled to have - who they exclude , heck not much is even known about organ donation except ' you are saving lives etc ', it is sure freaking hard to find.
Well I strongly think that a person is entitled to the knowledge if they are to donate their bodies. -
Do you know suspicion? It is a human trait and I do have my suspicions
It is okie to have suspicious and if the chances r not high, we have to let it go Otherwise there r too many things to safeguard and your life is drastically affectedNot if I have a burial plot overseas . It can be flown out.
Then another fact u need to know is your body is in a coffin and only fungus can grow without sunlight and fungus do not produce oxygen and your argument is still flawed. But anyway tis is a stupid thing to argue onLook who is talking. I seem to recall that someone has a strong stance to be a donor but cannot be bothered filling in the forms so an opt in system is more convenient for that person.
As said, I do not believe I will die tat fast so I will not inconvenience myself to fill up the form at my inconvenience Tis is human nature to drag and drag and drag and sadly men follow the dead line when it comes to start work.
But I am different from people who not only refuse to donate his organs, but also encourage people not to do it by stating US case, claiming people get their organs harvested before they die, saying the weak deserve to die and people shouldn't donate their organs as it tilt the balance, do it out of respect for nature etc etc... U know I only reach page 2 of tis thread and u have already made many remarks on why people should not go for organ donation. Now look who is the heartless one
Earth has its way of population control for animals and even human beings - the weakest die , the strongest survive . This is the way life works. Some have the unfortunate time to die early and some survive to old age takes them . There is a delicate balance and I refuse to tilt it either way.I am on the bone marrow registry . Are you on it because you know you actually do have to fill up forms? If you are not on it, I have the right to call you heartless as well.
U see, claim is cheap here I can claim I am on the bone marrow registry and I donate blood every 2 months and I had went to africa and serve for 10 years and I donated my cornea and kidney and liver to the needy. U don't know me, u can't say it is wrong Hypothetical one
Well there is a flaw in the sense tat the son, if he believe in tis religion so fervously, why he did not go to his church/temple/mosque and did not get informed by their head of the religion.
A family strongly believes in a religion which forbids violation of the body unless it is in exceptional cases aka explosions. So to violate any part of their body aka organ transplant - it means going straight to hell for eternity .
Their son believe in this religion as well. However due to their ignorance of an opt out , they did not sign the form to opt out. One day the son gets into an accident. His organs are removed automatically because their religion is not islam and the family was overseas on holiday. So when they return to find their son's body violated - corneas, heart , liver etc removed. He do not have any friends in the religion to inform him ? His parents also don't go to church ?
And wat is the chance of your case scenario of an ignorant person who claim to be religious and not attend religious sites, never read newspaper or watch the news, with no friends tat inform him of tis suppose to be big news, the head of his religion also don't care for him, his parents and relative also do not go to the religious building, he is not from the major religions in singapore and tis guy suddenly die in an accident when all his friends and relatives went for a holiday overseas ? (All major religion in singapore agree tat donating organs is good and not against their religion, except muslim. But u already say he is not a muslim) Because of catering to tis possibility of freak incident, many lives r lost and r in pain and their loved ones grieve
If u felt tat we should cater for such rare chances, then we should scrape off all laws as well because freak cases can happen to people with no intention to commit crime. There is tis guy who is walking on the street then suddenly fall and molest a girl who is walking down the corner. She is offended and sue the guy and do not believe the guy had fell. So tis guy went to jail because he had no evidence and witness. Now tis scenario have a higher possibility of happening than your scenario. So should we make molest legal ?In Singapore, if there is any info at all on how many organs a person is entitled to have - who they exclude , heck not much is even known about organ donation except ' you are saving lives etc ', it is sure freaking hard to find.
Difficult to find ? U just type "organ donation singapore" in google and the relevant website pop out int he first row
Well I strongly think that a person is entitled to the knowledge if they are to donate their bodies.
http://www.moh.gov.sg/corp/about/faqs/policy/details.do?cid=cat_faqs_pol_hota&id=8257615
Currently, Singaporeans and Singapore Permanent Residents who turn 21 years of age, or foreigners who obtain Singapore citizenship or permanent residence status will receive a letter from MOH informing them that they will be included under HOTA. They are also told that they can opt out if they object to having their organs removed upon death. MOH also informs the general public of HOTA twice a year through the main local newspapers in the 4 official languages.
With the passage of the Human Organ (Amendment) Bill, the Ministry embarked on a 6-month publicity campaign on the revised HOTA. The Ministry of Health also sent information brochures on the revised HOTA to every household.
For persons who have previously objected to the removal of their kidneys under HOTA, their objections are still valid. However, they would have to opt out for the other organs if they do not wish to donate them upon their death. -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
So you think everyone has internet access like you and I?
Difficult to find ? U just type "organ donation singapore" in google and the relevant website pop out int he first row
http://www.moh.gov.sg/corp/about/faqs/policy/details.do?cid=cat_faqs_pol_hota&id=8257615
Currently, Singaporeans and Singapore Permanent Residents who turn 21 years of age, or foreigners who obtain Singapore citizenship or permanent residence status will receive a letter from MOH informing them that they will be included under HOTA. They are also told that they can opt out if they object to having their organs removed upon death. [b]MOH also informs the general public of HOTA twice a year through the main local newspapers in the 4 official languages.
With the passage of the Human Organ (Amendment) Bill, the Ministry embarked on a 6-month publicity campaign on the revised HOTA. The Ministry of Health also sent information brochures on the revised HOTA to every household.
For persons who have previously objected to the removal of their kidneys under HOTA, their objections are still valid. However, they would have to opt out for the other organs if they do not wish to donate them upon their death. [/b]As said, I do not believe I will die tat fast so I will not inconvenience myself to fill up the form at my inconvenience Tis is human nature to drag and drag and drag and sadly men follow the dead line when it comes to start work.
ROFL claiming? It is not a claim in USA . It already happened. The coroner declared it a homicide . Any arguments with the coroner over that matter?
But I am different from people who not only refuse to donate his organs, but also encourage people not to do it by stating US case, claiming people get their organs harvested before they die, saying the weak deserve to die and people shouldn't donate their organs as it tilt the balance, do it out of respect for nature etc etc... U know I only reach page 2 of tis thread and u have already made many remarks on why people should not go for organ donation. Now look who is the heartless one
Earth has its way of population control for animals and even human beings - the weakest die , the strongest survive . This is the way life works. Some have the unfortunate time to die early and some survive to old age takes them . There is a delicate balance and I refuse to tilt it either way.
That nature argument was sarcasm to someone else using the same argument as you are telling people they are selfish because they want to opt out . You might as well take the riches away from the filthy rich so that the poor can survive instead of jumping into MRT tracks. How about that?
But sorry , Singapore is a not a welfare state ....but hey all Singaporeans except muslims are automatically opted into the system for their organs regardless of whether they know it or not.
Twice a year advertisement and only 1 six month period after that bill was passed ? Oh my ....YOU CALL THAT PUBLIC EdUCATION? ......I CALL THAT LAZINESS . If they cannot be bothered to tell people about organ donation , how would they expect to get a rise in organ donation? So they use the excuse of low organ donations and get in an auto opt in system for CONVENIENCE.
Wait...organs are rotting and transplant recipients dying from lack of organs ...how about people thrown out of HDB because they lost their jobs. Should we now go rob the rich to give to the poor since IT IS FOR THE GOOD OF ALL?
I am not objecting to people who fully consented to be a cadaveric organ donor - how many million times do you want me to repeat myself? I said it is GOOD to have people who know that they want to be cadaveric donors.
I am objecting to automatic opt in when you have people posting in this thread that they didn't even know until now that they were opt in without their consent or KNOWLEDGE. I am against people who call others selfish because they do not want to donate based on their beliefs.
You want to be a great organ donor - no problem with that . What's wrong with an volunteer opt in system? Alot of countries do donor volunteer opt in or get consent from families.
With an voluntary opt in system , the doctors can remove organs from the donor without fear of reprisal from the family. Organs get readily removed and transported to the recipient post haste instead of having a family come and then make noise while the organ degrades. Remember Anger always follow grief - families always want to blame somebody for the death of their loved ones.
A voluntary signed consent or donor card means a world to the doctors and the recipient. And the family will know it is the wishes of the deceased to help someone.
SO WHAT IS BLOODY WRONG WITH HAVING A VOLUNTEER OPT IN ?
Don't talk so much - you are too lazy to sign up TO BE A DONOR so you want a convenient system to allow your organs to be donated while others JUST GET ROBBED OUT OF THEIRS after their demise. Yes I reserve to call that robbery if someone is ignorant of the system.
Don't change the argument about who is heartless - I am NOT discouraging people from donating . Someone did ask me about the basis of my suspicion and I quoted my case stating a real situation that happened. Well , if the government is so keen on harvesting organs this way , I have a right to my suspicions and I have a right to my decision . -
Now we know that is a very good story you just told but seriously I am on the bone marrow registry .Originally posted by stupidissmart:U see, claim is cheap here I can claim I am on the bone marrow registry and I donate blood every 2 months and I had went to africa and serve for 10 years and I donated my cornea and kidney and liver to the needy. U don't know me, u can't say it is wrong
[/i]
Like what you said , you also don't know me. You have no right to judge me or call me selfish because I strongly feel that taking people's organs without their consent or knowledge is wrong.
You are arguing with me on the premise that you think I am against organ donation. I am not if it is free and willing , NOT like an auto opt in .
My stance on organ donation for the umpteen time : A person is performing a good deed if he/she wishes to donate their body with full knowledge and CONSENT. I have no objections to that. -
Most unfortunately you did not comprehend what I said . I was adding sarcasm with the naturistic arguments - they are just a sarcastic remark.
I already said well it is all good if people are willing to donate their organ with full knowledge of how their bodies will be used . i did recall mentioning it as a good deed. [/quote]
Sarcasm? Then I am afraid you have a very poor grasp of the concept. In your context it should be as accordinf to the way it is so defined:
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm
However it seems your “scarcasm” lacks any wit whatsoever. People properly use sarcasm to illustrate why a certain bad idea could not work… on the other hand, you are using sarcasm to dismiss very real questions to your position without attempting to truly answer them.
Let me quote you, and see if your alleged sarcasm is really sarcasm or blatant misdirection and evasion of the issue:12 February 2007 · 05:31 AM:
“nature took their chance away so why should those who refuse to donate should be made to feel bad about what is not their fault ?
Earth has its way of population control for animals and even human beings - the weakest die , the strongest survive . This is the way life works. Some have the unfortunate time to die early and some survive to old age takes them . There is a delicate balance and I refuse to tilt it either wayÂ…
I objected to it because of suspicion or put it rather as paranoia , and out of respect for the nature and its ways.”12 February 2007 · 07:47 PM
Don't blame people for not donating - it is not their fault someone dies from a lack of organs. Go blame it on how our body works.12 February 2007 · 08:09 PMWell call me selfish.....at least when I am alive , I can dictate the right to my liver or kidney on who they can go to.13 February 2007 · 03:10 PM
Yes, it is my informed decision and I can sleep at night with it.13 February 2007 · 03:40 PM
[quote] 15 February 2007 · 09:23 PM
SOYLENT GREEEEEEEEEEEN!
Besides I do not think it is selfish . It is the right of an individual to protect the sanctity of his body even after his/her demise. How one wants to deal with their body is based on their own decision. An automatic opt in is not what many are aware of and it is unfair to them.16 February 2007 · 10:29 PM
There you go, it is apparent to me that you are so fixated with rights.
Like I said , I didn't kill them. The nature of the disease did
I agree, we all have RIGHTS, but my question is thisÂ… have you been so fixated with your RIGHTS that you have entirely dismissed and forgotten about the CONSQUENCES of your RIGHTS?
So far, you have studiously avoided answering the implications of people [I]choosing[/I] not to be an organ donorÂ… you have instead focused on our right to have a choice, with which there was never any argument.
My question is this, we have this choiceÂ… but does it follow through that the varying alternatives we can take with this choice are all equal? You seem to think so, but after looking at the issue I find it hard to believe that you cannot see how you are contradicting yourself quite obviously in your speech which you have tried, but failed to explain away as mere sarcasm.
Even if it was sarcasm… one wonders then what is your real answer to people who suffer from organ failure? It seems even with all the sarcasm removed, it’s still the same, weak “it’s too bad it’s nature”… which effectively demolishes your own argument on our right to have choice… because a stronger entity taking away the rights of a weaker one is the only way that nature knows.
Even looking at your position in the most lenient of ways, you are trying to suggest that there is no difference between donors and non-donors… just the choice… which once again has proven to be untrue. There are very lasting and dramatic consequences from taking either way in this choice, certainly more then your position has given account for with your attempt at “sarcasm”. In fact you have more or less dodged serious questions about your choice and attempted to heap all the onus of argument and justification on the other side, which strikes me as inherently dishonest. You haven’t even sufficiently justified even the basic premise of your own position to begin with- sure we all have rights and choices… but where does this come from and why ought it be obeyed? From nature? Certainly not. Or is it just something we arbitrarily assume and equally arbitrary in the eyes of the government?
In fact you have given up entirely any justification for your outrage of the violation of the body by our governmental policies by your studious avoidance of the question. If anything it is your kind of thinking and position that actually [I]justifies[/I] and [I]reinforces[/I] the governmental argument on this issue from its basic premise, just that the two of you went different ways about it. This I truly find [I]ironic[/I] and [I]sarcastic[/I].
I suggest you thread this issue lightly, and try not to stamp on your own toes in your haste to make a point.
After all has been considered, it seems your naturalistic arguments are hardly sarcasm... they are just an attempt to avoid answering the questions you ought to answer and try to put it all on the other side.
Let's move on shall we? What then, shall we do with people who have organ failure? What is the right thing for us to choose? -
Everyone agrees that we must get consent for organ donation and incidentally I have signed an organ donation card some 20 years ago in medical school.
However, there are just too few of us who have signed an organ donation card. As SIS said, there are too many Singaporeans who are just too lazy to take the effort to sign up. Given that among the small numbers who have signed an organ donation card, an even smaller number would be brain dead for some reason before their heart stops (that is the window of opportunity needed for cadaveric organ transplant), the number of organs available for transplantation is very limited. Meanwhile, many patients die from the lack of an organ whilst every year, healthy organs are buried or burnt along with brain-dead victims.
I believe that an opt-out system does not take away consent. It presumes consent for the vast majority of Singaporeans who do not object to organ donation, but would not take the time and effort to sign an organ donation card. However, that minority has the right to register an objection and withdraw consent. Death is not something people want to think about. That is the reason an opt-out system is also being considered in the UK, where thousands die for the lack of a transplant organ or risk all sorts of complications going to India to buy an organ.
The government can do more to make it easier for Singaporeans to opt out. I agree there can be greater public education and opt-form forms can be made available in more public places, eg. polyclinics, all hospital information desks, RCs and community centres, petrol kiosks even...It should also be possible to opt out online and the web address should be published in the media.
I understand the reluctance to 'encourage' people to opt out but Singaporeans should be given a choice. However, I would advocate that those who opt out would not be given an organ transplant in the event that they need one, or unless there is no other suitable recipient in the entire transplant queue. -
ROFL claiming? It is not a claim in USA . It already happened. The coroner declared it a homicide . Any arguments with the coroner over that matter?
U don't anyhow link other part of your reply to tis one. The claim portion is about u saying u have bone marrow donation which is obviously unable to acertain and can very well be bullsh%t. Anyone can come out with cock and bull story
U want to look at the reply to your US thingy, it is stating there r accidents and mishap in every aspect in life. Doctors can make mistake, but we still have to rely on doctors to treat illness. Drivers make mistake, but we still have to take a car or bus to travel about. U don't twist replies from here to there. I never stat tat the US thingy is a claim. U have lost your integrity in forum by putting words into my mouthTwice a year advertisement and only 1 six month period after that bill was passed ? Oh my ....YOU CALL THAT PUBLIC EdUCATION? ......I CALL THAT LAZINESS . If they cannot be bothered to tell people about organ donation , how would they expect to get a rise in organ donation? So they use the excuse of low organ donations and get in an auto opt in system for CONVENIENCE.
Wow. 6 months of public education is not enough. Sending out forms to all houses is not enough. Printing on newspaper twice every year is not enough. Why don't we spend all our budget by massive employing people to give everybody a call every hour telling them about HOTA ? Only will tat be enough ?Wait...organs are rotting and transplant recipients dying from lack of organs ...how about people thrown out of HDB because they lost their jobs. Should we now go rob the rich to give to the poor since IT IS FOR THE GOOD OF ALL?
Com'on, u r giving a bad example here. Name me a person who is thrown off from HDB because he is too poor to pay. Furthermore, when u donate organs when u die, u did a great conribution tat is priceless and yet lose virtually nothing. When u donate money to poor people. U lose as much things as the other people gain.I am not objecting to people who fully consented to be a cadaveric organ donor - how many million times do you want me to repeat myself? I said it is GOOD to have people who know that they want to be cadaveric donors.
Don't bluff lah. U have been telling people NOT to donate organs by stating US case, by telling people doctor may harvest your organs out before your time, by telling parents r helpless when they see their son organs taken out, by telling it is against nature will and saying the weak deserve to die. Com'on, where is your forum integrity again ? U have been twisting and turning your stand as the wind blows.I am objecting to automatic opt in when you have people posting in this thread that they didn't even know until now that they were opt in without their consent or KNOWLEDGE. I am against people who call others selfish because they do not want to donate based on their beliefs.
I have given your example as how improbable it is for someone religious to donate their organs unwittingly. Where is your reply on it ?With an voluntary opt in system , the doctors can remove organs from the donor without fear of reprisal from the family. Organs get readily removed and transported to the recipient post haste instead of having a family come and then make noise while the organ degrades. Remember Anger always follow grief - families always want to blame somebody for the death of their loved ones.
U know wat is the problem ? It is not enough. U say so much thing but if no one volunteer because of laziness, the whole idea of donating organs become useless. As said before, the problem of auto opt in is people r angry. The problem of auto opt out is people die. Which is more critical ?Don't talk so much - you are too lazy to sign up TO BE A DONOR so you want a convenient system to allow your organs to be donated while others JUST GET ROBBED OUT OF THEIRS after their demise. Yes I reserve to call that robbery if someone is ignorant of the system.
I am lazy, I admit. It is the problem of the masses. Which people here who have not opt out the system but have sign in to donate their organs before ? Why don't u ask around and see the terribly lack of response. Tis is reality u know. If u ask Singqapore Tyrannosaur, Kenshin, fireice, oo_oo_oo, PRP who has supported for auto opt in, it is likely they also never opt in before the system of auto opt in set in
I have admitted I am lazy, why don't u admit u r heartless ? U view the people who need organs as the weaker part of the food chain, u view they should be eliminated to balance nature, u view they deserve to die from diesease than receive organs, u encourage people not to donate organs by telling scary stories of people getting their organs harvested before their time. U have already admitted u r selfish, so tat is ok. Now r u heartless as well ?However, I would advocate that those who opt out would not be given an organ transplant in the event that they need one, or unless there is no other suitable recipient in the entire transplant queue.
They r at the bottom of the demand supply. It is stated in the MOH website. So if all the people who donated their organs get their organs, then instead of wasting the organs they r given to the peole who have opt out. Strangely muslim is exempted from tis clause... I was just thinking whether is it halal to receive organ transplant because their old organs have to be taken out before a new one put in... -
Like I said umpteen times : I have no issues with people wanting to donate their organs with FULL KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT .Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:There you go, it is apparent to me that you are so fixated with rights.
I agree, we all have RIGHTS, but my question is thisÂ… have you been so fixated with your RIGHTS that you have entirely dismissed and forgotten about the CONSQUENCES of your RIGHTS?
So far, you have studiously avoided answering the implications of people [I]choosing[/I] not to be an organ donorÂ… you have instead focused on our right to have a choice, with which there was never any argument.
My question is this, we have this choiceÂ… but does it follow through that the varying alternatives we can take with this choice are all equal? You seem to think so, but after looking at the issue I find it hard to believe that you cannot see how you are contradicting yourself quite obviously in your speech which you have tried, but failed to explain away as mere sarcasm.
Even if it was sarcasm… one wonders then what is your real answer to people who suffer from organ failure? It seems even with all the sarcasm removed, it’s still the same, weak “it’s too bad it’s nature”… which effectively demolishes your own argument on our right to have choice… because a stronger entity taking away the rights of a weaker one is the only way that nature knows.
Even looking at your position in the most lenient of ways, you are trying to suggest that there is no difference between donors and non-donors… just the choice… which once again has proven to be untrue. There are very lasting and dramatic consequences from taking either way in this choice, certainly more then your position has given account for with your attempt at “sarcasm”. In fact you have more or less dodged serious questions about your choice and attempted to heap all the onus of argument and justification on the other side, which strikes me as inherently dishonest. You haven’t even sufficiently justified even the basic premise of your own position to begin with- sure we all have rights and choices… but where does this come from and why ought it be obeyed? From nature? Certainly not. Or is it just something we arbitrarily assume and equally arbitrary in the eyes of the government?
In fact you have given up entirely any justification for your outrage of the violation of the body by our governmental policies by your studious avoidance of the question. If anything it is your kind of thinking and position that actually [I]justifies[/I] and [I]reinforces[/I] the governmental argument on this issue from its basic premise, just that the two of you went different ways about it. This I truly find [I]ironic[/I] and [I]sarcastic[/I].
I suggest you thread this issue lightly, and try not to stamp on your own toes in your haste to make a point.
After all has been considered, it seems your naturalistic arguments are hardly sarcasm... they are just an attempt to avoid answering the questions you ought to answer and try to put it all on the other side.
Let's move on shall we? What then, shall we do with people who have organ failure? What is the right thing for us to choose?
Don't fight me on an emotional ground when I am fighting on a principle of choice. Sure take my comments out of context if you wish to win your argument about how heartless or inhumane I am when I am just against an auto opt in policy.
I have an issue with the auto opt in policy . It is stealthy and dishonest. It is just another convenient way of treating people as potential organ farms.
I loathe people calling anyone names or accusing them of selfishness because we might not believe the same thing. There is no wrong or right in making a choice in organ donation. You just have to sell people the idea and the benefits of another receiving a life saving organ from another. If people refuse on their beliefs - their choice and they do not deserved to be namecalled. However most will become free and willing organ donors if they know something can be done further after their death.
That is why I fully support a volunteer opt in system. People can sign up and be donors. If one does not agree on the basis of their beliefs, there will be plenty of others who will agree to be cadaveric organ donors. That is not a problem. The only problem is that the policymakers cannot be bothered with such a system and they go for the next convenient way of organ farming. What is so inhumane or wrong of supporting a voluntary opt in system? If they have a voluntary opt in system - I would not be even speaking out about the organ donation this way.
My parents have made it known to me that they do not want their organs out of them for fear and suspicion that their life might get terminated prematurely after the auto opt in policy. So who is going to assure them that this is not going to happen when there is a degree of mistrust of such a policy? Are they wrong to object by signing a form ? No. Can I prevent them from being suspicious? No. Because I am suspicious already of a policy which is stealthy in nature.
And you have one forumner saying that he cannot be bothered to fill forms up despite his strong support of organ donation, and he goes around calling others who refuse selfish . Isn't that hypocritical?
There are many ways to go around letting people volunteer themselves happily as cadaveric organ donors other than ENFORCING a law on them to be automatically inducted as cadaveric donors if they are not muslims.
Yes I like to be strong on rights and choices. It is what protects humans as individuals and communities. The policy violates the rights of unsuspecting donors the right of consent. It is just wrong. One wrong does not make a right regardless of how lifesaving it might seem. -
So do I care? I don't . I opted out. I don't get to survive on the list. I don't need to be coerced into signing away the right to my body. Thank you very much.Originally posted by stupidissmart:They r at the bottom of the demand supply. It is stated in the MOH website. So if all the people who donated their organs get their organs, then instead of wasting the organs they r given to the peole who have opt out. Strangely muslim is exempted from tis clause... I was just thinking whether is it halal to receive organ transplant because their old organs have to be taken out before a new one put in... U want to look at the reply to your US thingy, it is stating there r accidents and mishap in every aspect in life. Doctors can make mistake, but we still have to rely on doctors to treat illness. Drivers make mistake, but we still have to take a car or bus to travel about. U don't twist replies from here to there. I never stat tat the US thingy is a claim. U have lost your integrity in forum by putting words into my mouth
Right now about you accusing me of putting words in your mouth about claims (see above): the case of that american is such that the coroner ruled he died as a result of removal of his organs . Well excuse me , who is being dishonest here?
"... but also encourage people not to do it by stating US case, claiming people get their organs harvested before they die...."
People makes mistakes all the time ....I sure hope not when a doctor treats me or declares me dead. I worked in the healthcare system long enough to see enough fuckups. Unless someone can convince me to trust a system I worked for - I will continue to have my doubts and keep to them.
Did I discourage people at all? I just hammered at the principle of the auto opt in policy. I didn't say that volunteering to be an organ donor is wrong did I?
Go ahead paint me as heartless . I am more worried about the transgression of rights that come with a policy - it will not just affect me or you but others as well. Did you even bother to read further down that american article especially about the part of organ quality? -
I didn't say thrown off . I said thrown out of HDB and forgot to add flats due to editing issues. See the thread on homeless and HDB foreclosures.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Com'on, u r giving a bad example here. Name me a person who is thrown off from HDB because he is too poor to pay.have given your example as how improbable it is for someone religious to donate their organs unwittingly. Where is your reply on it ?
You said most religions of Singapore agree that organ donation is good. You forget that there are some religions which do not agree or might not agree. For example, there are very religious jews follow a law called nivul hamet which is the objection of forbidden descecration of the body as well. There are jehovah witnesses who object to organ donation. And both groups are present in Singapore. -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Overall the government as I recalled never did to emphasize much on organ donation during my time as a student or when I was working. It would be interesting to see what the UK residents say about an auto opt in system.
Everyone agrees that we must get consent for organ donation and incidentally I have signed an organ donation card some 20 years ago in medical school.
However, there are just too few of us who have signed an organ donation card. As SIS said, there are too many Singaporeans who are just too lazy to take the effort to sign up. Given that among the small numbers who have signed an organ donation card, an even smaller number would be brain dead for some reason before their heart stops (that is the window of opportunity needed for cadaveric organ transplant), the number of organs available for transplantation is very limited. Meanwhile, many patients die from the lack of an organ whilst every year, healthy organs are buried or burnt along with brain-dead victims.
I believe that an opt-out system does not take away consent. It presumes consent for the vast majority of Singaporeans who do not object to organ donation, but would not take the time and effort to sign an organ donation card. However, that minority has the right to register an objection and withdraw consent. Death is not something people want to think about. That is the reason an opt-out system is also being considered in the UK, where thousands die for the lack of a transplant organ or risk all sorts of complications going to India to buy an organ.
The government can do more to make it easier for Singaporeans to opt out. I agree there can be greater public education and opt-form forms can be made available in more public places, eg. polyclinics, all hospital information desks, RCs and community centres, petrol kiosks even...It should also be possible to opt out online and the web address should be published in the media.
I understand the reluctance to 'encourage' people to opt out but Singaporeans should be given a choice. However, I would advocate that those who opt out would [b]not be given an organ transplant in the event that they need one, or unless there is no other suitable recipient in the entire transplant queue.
[/b]
HOTA stated they will be placed on a lower priority list if they opt out than those who opt in.
One way to raise opt in rate is to register consent on driver's licence or identification cards. When the person acquires either of them - ID being redone at 30 for the age of consent - they should be asked if they wish to be an organ donor. That is the way to go . I do believe the americans have the driver licence system of documentating organ donors in some states. Some are legally binding and some are not. -
So do I care? I don't . I opted out. I don't get to survive on the list. I don't need to be coerced into signing away the right to my body. Thank you very much.
Because MUIS say it have to come with conditions.
MUIS issued a fatwa saying it was ok for them to donate - why aren't they auto opted in then?
On 25 August 2004, the Fatwa Committee of the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (Muis) ruled that if a person wants to pledge his organ(s) for transplantation, his next-of-kin's consent is no longer a condition. Instead, he is only required to obtain the witness of any two male Muslim adults.
The next-of-kin must respect the pledger's decision by allowing the organ(s) to be transplanted upon his death, as long as the condition of the pledge does not contravene Islamic Law.
If the deceased had not pledged his organ(s), during his lifetime, the decision to donate the deceased's organ(s) rests on his next-of-kin.Right now about you accusing me of putting words in your mouth about claims (see above): the case of that american is such that the coroner ruled he died as a result of removal of his organs . Well excuse me , who is being dishonest here?
Yah true, but u show tis example to discourage people from donating organs isn't it ? Do u read properly my reply ? If u r a bad reader u don't blame people from putting words into your mouth. I claim u use the US case to discourage people from donating organs. True or false ?
Tis is your past reply
Did I discourage people at all? I just hammered at the principle of the auto opt in policy. I didn't say that volunteering to be an organ donor is wrong did I?
Earth has its way of population control for animals and even human beings - the weakest die , the strongest survive . This is the way life works. Some have the unfortunate time to die early and some survive to old age takes them . There is a delicate balance and I refuse to tilt it either way.
Here u blatently tell people tat weak people should die when their time come and we shouldn't upset nature by donating organs. Is tat not discouraging ?
How about tis
Once an organ goes into you - you have to take anti rejection drugs - those are really the pits and a risk of the organ failing or be rejected means more suffering. I won't even ask my family to donate their organs to me because the risk is too high for them .
U r telling people even if the organs is donated to people they still live lousy lives. Is tis encouraging organ donation or discouraging them ? Wat do u mean by "pits" ? Encouraging people for donation ? Giving organ may give the people more suffering ? Encouraging or discouraging ?
To have a donor's heart , cornea and lungs mean a person died so that I could have their organs? No bloody thanks.
Again a stupid misconception and discouraging organ donation. U r getting the organs from dead people ok ?
The body is mine made up of genetic structures of my ancestors , the DNA match is likely to be within my family. Do you even know anything about organ tranplants? It is all about the luck of the draw for matching organs between strangers. Alot of people still die on waiting lists because they cannot even find a matching donor from those who die suddenly . If the donor is within the family and has a match, the person have a lower rate of organ rejection than taking a donor organ of a stranger?
Now wat is tis ? R u encouraging or discouraging organ donation here ? U r telling people since we can only donate to strangers, they r still playing dice on whether they live or not. Doesn't more organs donated ensure more people have the right match and thus survive ?
Com'on, I have put enough examples of u discouraging people from donating their organs. Face it man. Your earlier replies to the thread r discouraging the whole idea of donating organs. It is only after some hammering to u then u start to switch your stand abut organ donationI didn't say thrown off . I said thrown out of HDB and forgot to add flats due to editing issues. See the thread on homeless and HDB foreclosures.
Now do u see anyone with no where to stay in singapore ? The people who defaulted for their payment can still seek gov help and they will lease them smaller flats at a price of $50 per month.You said most religions of Singapore agree that organ donation is good. You forget that there are some religions which do not agree or might not agree. For example, there are very religious jews follow a law called nivul hamet which is the objection of forbidden descecration of the body as well. There are jehovah witnesses who object to organ donation. And both groups are present in Singapore.
I think u better read properly. I did mention tat the odds of a person who is not within the major religion is pretty low. How many jews r there in singapore ? Next, they r suppose to go to synaguoge on saturday. They r a very close committee where interactions between people r regular. Jehovah witness r cults and their member here r limited as well. So the odds tat such freak incident happened is still low low and very low -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Fair enough
Because MUIS say it have to come with conditions.
On 25 August 2004, the Fatwa Committee of the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (Muis) ruled that if a person wants to pledge his organ(s) for transplantation, his next-of-kin's consent is no longer a condition. Instead, he is only required to obtain the witness of any two male Muslim adults.
The next-of-kin must respect the pledger's decision by allowing the organ(s) to be transplanted upon his death, as long as the condition of the pledge does not contravene Islamic Law.
If the deceased had not pledged his organ(s), during his lifetime, the decision to donate the deceased's organ(s) rests on his next-of-kin.
False . My opinion is my own and I do not expect others to take it up. Someone asked for the basis of my disagreement and I answered it. How are you going to convince someone to trust the system? I already have a fair amount of distrust of the government and it will transfer onto any policies they set up. Singapore is not very known for being open.
Yah true, but u show tis example to discourage people from donating organs isn't it ? Do u read properly my reply ? If u r a bad reader u don't blame people from putting words into your mouth. I claim u use the US case to discourage people from donating organs. True or false ?
I didn't start this thread calling it a "robbery" - someone else did and I agree with their viewpoint on calling it a "robbery"
I am stating my personal views and I already stated my stance for a voluntary opt in system . How you wish to color my character is entirely your choice but I would not hesitate to defend it . And as I said nature arguments are just a sarcastic answer to someone else.
Com'on, I have put enough examples of u discouraging people from donating their organs. Face it man. Your earlier replies to the thread r discouraging the whole idea of donating organs. It is only after some hammering to u then u start to switch your stand abut organ donation
Yes I am human , yes I want my family to come first . What's wrong with that? At least I can frankly admit that I am no saint. SO? Have a problem with that? I won't ask my family to donate organs to me as a living donor either. Are you calling that my personal view a general discouragement?
As for my statement about someone being dead for me to take their organs, well that is my personal view again and I opted out of the system so I am fine there. I recall reading somewhere - Austria has an auto opt in system as well but people don't die fast enough to supply the organs. I do not wish for someone die so that I get their organs to stay alive.
Organ transplantations is not a fairy tale of a happy endings. Anti rejection drugs will become their life and if they don't adhere to it , the risk of organ rejection is high and very painful and even if they adhere to it , there is still a risk of organ rejection . Those facts are made known to recipients when they are told they need transplants. What is wrong about openly stating those facts? Don't like the way it is told? I don't moddly coddle people from such facts. Too bad if you cannot take it as it is . I will not make an apology for stating a fact.
As for the article pertaining to USA , that is also a fact. It happened. Not some fairy tale. Do you have an issue with facts being told?
Go read about the homeless "by choice" thread. Life is not so rosy as you will like to think it is
Now do u see anyone with no where to stay in singapore ? The people who defaulted for their payment can still seek gov help and they will lease them smaller flats at a price of $50 per month.
So what if it is very low ? It can still happen. Probability does not include dismissal.
I think u better read properly. I did mention tat the odds of a person who is not within the major religion is pretty low. How many jews r there in singapore ? Next, they r suppose to go to synaguoge on saturday. They r a very close committee where interactions between people r regular. Jehovah witness r cults and their member here r limited as well. So the odds tat such freak incident happened is still low low and very low
[/b] -
False . My opinion is my own and I do not expect others to take it up. Someone asked for the basis of my disagreement and I answered it. How are you going to convince someone to trust the system? I already have a fair amount of distrust of the government and it will transfer onto any policies they set up. Singapore is not very known for being open.
Com'on, u r stating your stand and it "do not expect people to take it up". Tis is a public forum. Wat u said influence people. In tis sense u influence people not to donate organs.
Your distrust of gov shouldn't be brought to the people who need organs. Then u have not become pro-people but simply anti pap. Not all decisions made by pap is wrong.I am stating my personal views and I already stated my stance for a voluntary opt in system . How you wish to color my character is entirely your choice but I would not hesitate to defend it . And as I said nature arguments are just a sarcastic answer to someone else.
Too bad your sacarsm comes from your words and u have to answer for it. And yah, u right to say the below listed points, but I am right in saying u r discouraging people from donating organs.
.....
Did I discourage people at all? I just hammered at the principle of the auto opt in policy. I didn't say that volunteering to be an organ donor is wrong did I?
Tis is wrong. U discourage people to donate organs. Case closed.So what if it is very low ? It can still happen. Probability does not include dismissal.
I have given u an example of accidental molesting. We cannot cater for all freak cases in life, especially at the risk of many many lives. Do u really read the reply I have given ? -
Your accidental molesting hypothetical is somewhat irritating at best. There is a justice system where a man is free to defend himself.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Com'on, u r stating your stand and it "do not expect people to take it up". Tis is a public forum. Wat u said influence people. In tis sense u influence people not to donate organs. [/quote]
Freedom of speech and I exercise it to voice my views. Sorry that you cannot grasp the simple concept of freedom of speech. I doubt many will agree with me and some might violently disagree like you do but I can accept that.
You are free to your opinion. And I am free to voice mine as long as it is not against the law.
Your distrust of gov shouldn't be brought to the people who need organs. Then u have not become pro-people but simply anti pap. Not all decisions made by pap is wrong.
Too bad your sacarsm comes from your words and u have to answer for it. And yah, u right to say the below listed points, but I am right in saying u r discouraging people from donating organs.
Tis is wrong. U discourage people to donate organs. Case closed.
Again, you are entitled to your opinions. However it is unfair to say I am anti PAP . I just don't agree with them on certain convenient ways they make their rules but that does not mean I attack every single one of their policies.
I am actually quite pro people - in the sense they should have the right to consent. Intrusion on this right will propagate further in the future to other things but then again it already has. Sorry if you cannot catch the drift.
Aren't I answering for my opinions now? You can think how right you are in anyway . It is your personal opinion. Not mine.
You call it discouragement by stating facts about organ transplants and anti-rejection drugs or even stating an unfortunate incident that happen? A fact is a fact no matter how bad it sounds. Will it discourage anyone? Negative - considering people have been volunteering to be donors prior to the scheme. I doubt none will sign an opt out scheme unless they have their own reasons against organ donation prior to this forum thread .
As much as it would be lovely to have a powerful influence on people's thoughts but alas I doubt that is happening. The world is more fun with differing opinions. At least I am honest with mine.
[quote]
I have given u an example of accidental molesting. We cannot cater for all freak cases in life, especially at the risk of many many lives. Do u really read the reply I have given ?
Once a body is considered desecrated - it is desecrated. That constitutes a serious nature of a religious or cultural sense that it might influence the afterlife of a person. If you do not understand that but call it too bad for the grieving family , that would make you no better than I as you claim me to be .