Opt-out forms for organ 'robbery'
-
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.
U r not answering the question at hand. No one is saying u can't speak your mind. Did I say u have to shut up ? U can, but it just shows u r discouraging people from donating organs which u claim u do not. U have twist and turn your stand. U have shown to be heartless. Tat is it
You are free to your opinion. And I am free to voice mine as long as it is not against the law.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 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.
I must remind u of your previous statement. U claim u have a fair amount or distrust on any policy they set up. I don't know man, sounds like u have a biased opinion of the gov and any policies they set up. If u don't want to be label as anti PAP, then ok lor...I am actually quite pro people - in the sense they should have the right to consent.
They have the right to consent by not rejecting
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 .
Then how does anyone discourage people from donating organs ? If stating tat doctors rob your organs when u r alive, life after organ transplant is not worth living, going against nature by donating organ is not discouraging, then wat is discouraging ? All your grand talk still can't cover the fact tat your earlier statement about "not discouraging organ donation" is just crap.Your accidental molesting hypothetical is somewhat irritating at best. There is a justice system where a man is free to defend himself.
I have already stated the man has no evidence and no witness. There is no ground of defence. He is going to be charged and the charge will be successful. A person life and future may be lost. But the world can't cater for all these if it want to function well. It can't make molesting legal. Same as your freak case. If such a thing happen to him, then my condolences to him but it can't be helped. The person probably experience the same fate much like jews being killed in war and their body not put together, or their body eaten by animals before burial or in accidents where their body part r lost forever etc. No one can guarantee the body parts for all jews to be together in all situation and tat is just too bad. So wat will happened to all these people ? If their god send them to limbo over such accidents, then u have to blame god, not the people, like u blame the organs tat fail the people and not the donater. -
Stupidissmart,
I sense alot of emotions in your arguments.
Hey I didn't publish that information on the web - the media did about that american man. They also did it in print. Are they discouraging people? No . They are just reporting something that happen and they are putting out their opinion on it. Information flows regardless of whether I post it here or not.
I see that you still have not grasp the concept of free speech but choose to attack my personal views . That's too bad and almost laughable when you accuse me of influencing others - how much can I influence ? People have brains - they can judge and make up their own opinions.
If you want to be emotional about the plight of recipients ,that is fine by me. I do empathise with their situation. But you choose to tell me that it is just too bad for the grieving family and their beliefs if it can save a person. Well one wrong does not make a right. By virtue of that, you are in fact no better than what you make me out to be .
You want to talk about how organs save lives - that is fine by me as long as the organ donor is aware that he is a cadaveric donor. I have no issue with that. To go around calling those who refuse to donate based on their beliefs and namecalling them as heartless or selfish will not further your purpose at all.
I do believe that I am not the only one who is suspicious of the health policies and government and I am definitely not the only one who puts my family ahead first.
There are plenty who are out there who will think like I do - and it is going to be a heck lot of difficult convincing through the use of insults such as implying that "we are selfish little buggers who want to hog our organs to the grave". -
Like I said umpteen times : I have no issues with people wanting to donate their organs with FULL KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT .
Painting out to you- which is the inadequate logical justification of your own position.
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.
And what emotional grounds am I fighting you on? I am quite thoroughly analysing your position with pure logic. It seems to me there exists an great incongruence of sorts in your position, much akin to the person who only chooses to read one chapter of a story book and stops where it agrees with them and tries to avoid the other chapters which they should really read.
Am I taking your comments out of context? Of where these but words you carelessly made in an attempt to wildly state your own case, words that you try to disown now? I think everybody in here has eyes to see what is truly the case. Not surprisingly, you are dismissing your very own words in the same way you treat just about anything that does not agree with the way you might like to see things.
Since you consider yourself an enlightened person in this matter, and you have FULL KNOWLEDGE and FULL CONSENT to make your choiceÂ… how then can you exibit such a appalling lack of knowledge about what exactly your choice means?
As I said, and in fact your subsequent posts have contained to prove but my point, you are primarily concerned with the “Rights” in this issue that we all have… however in attempting to base your entire position merely on it you ended up bordering on the rather ridiculous, not to mention come across no more callous then the very government you accuse of treating people like livestock.
One needs to ask, with all their loud proclamations of SOLVENT GREEN, who is the emotional and irrational one here?
It seems rather unfortunate that while you are aware of rights, you seem rather ignorant to the fact that rights do not equate to consequences-less actions. As goes yet again to your recent comment on having the freedom of speech: it is true that as long as it is not against the law, we have the freedom to speak whatever it wants. However it does not follow that all the speech that results from this right is equal. Simply having the right to free speech does not mean you will not talk like an idiot.
Not to mentionÂ… if you donÂ’t even understand your own rights trulyÂ… what right do you have to insist on them? Are you not like yet another person who is NOT FULLY INFORMED making big choices? Only this time your own logical incongruence have automatically made them for youÂ… you arenÂ’t more free the poor victims of the governmental system, you simply shifted the ignorance you yourself.
So whoÂ’s the illogical one here? I can see you are starting to grasp at straws here, given how recently you tried to remind everybody you had the freedom to say whatever you want here. I think everybody is already clear on that- the only difference is that you seem to have mistaken a right to say anything you want with the ability to actually say things that make sense.
So the question remains, and to which you have not fully answered: What about those who suffer from organ failure? Is it just too bad for them? Are they expendable pawns and victims in our battle for rights against an unfair system? Is not such a mindset as yours as cold, dismissive and uncaring as the government one? If so what superiority of position does your own opinion have over the main system? It's just a mistake in the other direction every bit as grotesque and inhuman.
I do not agree with the way the auto-opt in system is done, but I think there are far better ways of skinning this cat then yours. And also seriously urge anyone who realize that they have the right to choose not take a right as to mean something they choose as if to have tea with milk or not. -
Coroner blasted for claim of early organ harvestingOriginally posted by fymk: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.
By Todd Hartman And Ellen Miller, Rocky Mountain News
An organ recovery group and the president of the Colorado Coroners Association on Tuesday rejected an accusation that a Montrose man had his organs removed before he was legally brain-dead.
The ruling from Montrose County Coroner Mark Young was "unfounded and irresponsible," said Sue Dunn, vice president of Donor Alliance of Denver, and could fan misplaced concerns "that organs could be recovered from someone who is not legally dead."
Donor Alliance was so concerned about the impact of Young's assertions on prospective donors that the group organized a press briefing that included two metro-area coroners and a neurosurgeon.
In addition, a top executive of St. Mary's Hospital in Grand Junction - where the patient was declared brain-dead and the organs were removed - flew to Denver to participate.
"The situation that has been publicized simply did not happen," Dunn said, adding that officials were "bewildered and confused" by Young's allegations.
On Monday, Young, a part-time coroner who is not a licensed physician but makes his living as a paramedic, announced in a news release that he had ruled the death of William Rardin, 31, a homicide.
Young said that St. Mary's, along with Donor Alliance, made a declaration of brain death that didn't meet "acceptable medical standards" after Rardin shot himself in the head on Sept. 26.
But other coroners closed ranks Tuesday around Donor Alliance and St. Mary's, saying that initial indications suggest all guidelines were adhered to and that Rardin was legally brain-dead.
"From what I can tell preliminarily, it does look like all the procedures were followed," said Arapahoe County Coroner Michael Doberson, who serves as the president of the Colorado Coroners Association and expects to participate in a more detailed review of the case.
Also weighing in was Mesa County coroner Rob Kurtzman, who conducted the autopsy on Rardin's body. Kurtzman, a forensic pathologist, said he found damage to the brain "typical for a gunshot wound."
"His injuries were not compatible with sustained life and the findings were typical of brain death," Kurtzman said in a statement. "They were typical of any individual who was pronounced brain-dead."
Kurtzman performed the autopsy because Rardin's body was in Mesa County, after he was declared brain-dead at St. Mary's.
Young, however, took jurisdiction of the case away from Kurtzman, saying in his news release Monday that "jurisdiction of the case was transferred from the Mesa County Coroner to the Montrose County Coroner per (state statute)."
At their briefing, Donor Alliance officials outlined the facts they say show that protocols were properly followed:
• A "clearly documented brain-death note" written by a physician was part of the patient's chart at St. Mary's and the declaration was "within acceptable medical criteria."
• The death declaration was made based on clinical observations and an apnea test, which measures a person's ability to breathe without mechanical support, in accordance with state law.
• The brain-death note was reviewed and accepted by Donor Alliance, as well as by three other doctors.
• The donor was listed on the Colorado Donor Registry, and family members cooperated with the organ donation coordinator.
Dan Prinster, senior vice president for business development at St. Mary's, said the hospital "felt strongly" it took the appropriate steps "to make sure the patient was respected and followed the necessary guidelines for us to engage Donor Alliance."
Prinster also noted that Young was the official who gave final clearance allowing organs to be recovered from Rardin even though he had the authority to delay the process pending his own review of the situation.
"One has to ask, why didn't (Young) address the issue at that time?" Prinster said.
Young could not be located for comment Tuesday.
A woman answering the phone at his office said he was in Denver attending to a family medical emergency.
Young first ran for coroner in 1998 as an unaffiliated candidate, losing handily to Republican Dr. Bob Brethouwer, a family physician, according to Montrose County Clerk and Recorder Carol Kruse.
Young switched affiliation to run against Brethouwer in the 2002 Republican primary and edged the doctor, 1,020 votes to 905. Young was unopposed in the general election.
Colorado has no qualifications for coroners other than being 18 and registered to vote, a system Kurtzman and others have long lobbied to change. Beginning with the general election of 2006, coroners will be required to take 40 hours of initial training in death investigations and 16 hours per year in subsequent years.
Many of Colorado's larger counties have forensic pathologists as coroners, but smaller counties usually do not.
Rardin's family, which resides in Montrose County, declined comment on the controversy. "We're not prepared to discuss it now," said Jon Rardin, William's father.
The coroner in this case is not a forensic pathologist and he has no medical training apart from being a paramedic. His opinion on the medical aspects of brain death certification has to be viewed as highly suspect. -
May God bless u to live through this CNY!!!!Originally posted by Kenashi:u meant yr cancerous cells huh
u dying soon, poor thing.
may u rot in hell soon or some other place where yr kind go after death
i don't even want to pity u cos u r not even worth it
As a Gods will never has a happy ending in life!!!! -
Here is an excerpt of the coroner's review of the US case, so readers will get the full picture:
Coroner review
October 13, 2004
The Coroner Protocol Review Committee met and reviewed the case of the death of Mr. William Rardin. The members of the committee are as follows:
Coroner Protocol Review Committee Members:
Michael Dobersen, MD, Ph D., Coroner, Arapahoe County Thomas Henry, MD, Coroner, Denver County Thomas Bak, MD, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center Mark Randall, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Jefferson and Gilpin County Diane Balkin, Deputy District Attorney, Denver County Patricia D. Brewster, Chief Executive Officer, Donor Alliance Sue Dunn, Vice President of Organ Operations, Donor Alliance
Others Present:
J. Adair Prall, MD, Neurosurgeon, Littleton Adventist Hospital Robert Breeze, MD, Neurosurgeon, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center D. Nikki Wheeler, Director of Communications/PR, Donor Alliance
Documents Reviewed In Reference to the Rardin Case:
Montrose Memorial Hospital Chart St. Mary's Hospital Chart Donor Alliance Case Chart Supplemental Documents:
Montrose County Coroner's Office October 4th Press Release Colorado State Statute 12-36-136 Guidelines for the Determination of Death American Academy of Neurology Practice Parameters: Determining Brain Death in Adults Neurology 1995; 45:1003-1011 Determining Brain Death in Adults Donor Alliance Standards for Brain Death Determination St. Mary's Hospital Manual Patient Care Standard: Brain Death Determination St. Mary's Hospital Apnea Testing of Intubated Adult Patients St. Mary's Hospital Patient Care Organ and Tissue Donation National Organ Transplant Act- 1984, Title 42 United States Code (USC), Part H-organ transplants, Section 274e October 18, 2001, Donor Alliance Coroner Protocol Mark Young's October 4, 2004 Press Release
Prior to making its findings and reaching its conclusions, the committee reviewed all of the listed documents, considered statements made by Mark Young to the media and to members of Donor Alliance. The committee also relied on the following: conversations committee members had with the doctors that were involved in the medical care of Mr. Rardin, comments, expert opinions, and conversations with Donor Alliance personnel, and conversations with you.
The Findings of the Committee:
1. No homicide occurred. Mr. Young should reconsider his finding and amend the death certificate to reflect the accurate and irrefutable cause of death as a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head, and the manner of death as a suicide.
2. The actions of Mr. Young were based on a lack of information and an inappropriate understanding of the medical and legal issues involved. His actions were reckless when, despite ample and competent evidence to the contrary, he rendered the ruling and completed the death certificate indicating that this death was a homicide due to the removal of Mr. Rardin's internal organs by an organ recovery team. It was also irresponsible for him to then release these findings to the media, without appropriate factual confirmation and determination.
3. These actions have served to undermine the public trust in the organ donation system, as well as the public trust in the health care, coroner and criminal justice systems.
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/archives2/archives2mail/mail332.html -
So moving on shall we, letÂ’s cut a lot of the sub-arguments at get to the heart of the matter. At the end of the day, when all is said and done what exactly should be do about it?
I am not entirely sure fmykÂ’s idea of abolishing the entire thing and relying entirely on education and hoping to get the public to sign up to be a donor works- not as long as we are the kind of mentality we are currently and these are still very real lives being affect that we are talking here. fmyk is perhaps only concerned with protecting rights, but goes no further into the very real realities of the social, economic and emotional costs of organ failure to our society. The fact remains is this: that even as we struggle to educate our people to realize the value of being a donor very real people are dying. And fmykÂ’s dismissive attitude towards this as a non issue is highly disturbing, not to mention contradictory to her own passion for human rights.
In short his/her/itÂ’s solution is like having an idea for a cure-all for all the ills in societyÂ… but having no feasible way of implementing it without great costs in itself. Her method of an entirely elective donor program protects rights to the highest degreeÂ… not because it is a moral system but simply because it is a system that requires simply apathy and inaction to protect rights. All a person needs to do is not give two hoots, regardless of all the education he has been given to the contrary to defeat this. And know this: this person is mostly not a person who is even opposed to being a donor, but simply one that has no view on the issue or sees it as unimportant.
As they way we are currently, in is in many of our natures to avoid making choices if they are not necessary. As long as we make organ donation a by-the-way choice which we can put off if we want, people will die not because we elected not to donate, but because many of us simply didnÂ’t care, held no views on this issue, or were simply lazy to take the steps.
Now this translates to very real costs and loss, and not something that ought to be simply dismissed as “needing more education”, or “working to change mindsets.”. Granted all these things need to be done, but in the meantime a stopgap needs to be found to protect the people who are suffering the weight of apathy and indifference. fmyk’s solution of “needing more education” and “changing hearts and minds” works in theory, but can one implement this without incurring many deaths before it is finally achieved? In an idea society everybody has the conscience to make an educated and informed decision on this issue… but are we there yet? Until we are there how many will die?
More importantly, are these deaths needless casualties? fmyk has consistently asserted in her arguments that causalities are justifiedÂ… not from any real justification but simply that these deaths do not matter- in other words, she is pretty much saying that we should not worry about the deaths from organ failure while we go about changing our society. But by all indications this is not only fallacious but also greatly disturbing from a person who values human rights so much.
The reality is this: a lot of people who are potential donors from the circumstances of their demise end up not donating not because they are personally opposed to donation or want to preserve their body (like fmyk because she has “respect for nature and its ways”), but simply because they have no opinions about this issue (ie. they go “it’s okay or not if you take my organs, I don’t really care because I’m dead”), or worse, because they are simply lazy to decide on it, it being a non necessary choice… In which case how many people suffering from organ failure die needless or preventable deaths because people who had no opinion in the matter pro or con (in other words saying “do anything you want”) had wasted their organs on death? Somehow these needless deaths of mothers, fathers, sons and daughters dying is unimportant to fmyk because in as far she is concerned with rights and choice… even with those who have decided to remove themselves from making any choice or having any rights in the matter.
I do not find his/her/its position tenableÂ… in fact her position is a lot akin to high ended idealism with little grasp on reality. The reality is that a lot of organs have been wasted in the past and a lot of people have died needless deaths not from any opposition to donationÂ… but sheer indifference.
How to go about it. The only merit that fmyk has is that at least she manages to propose a solution, if but a weak one (not surprisingly given his/her/itÂ’s borderline regard for human life)Â… and that is education and working to change our society by taking the proper way out to transform it to the way it should be. However he/she/it pretty much stops there because as far as he/she/itÂ’s concerned, her rights are protected and the rest is irrelevant to his/her/itÂ’s consideration (ironically he/she/it is perhaps in need of the very education he/she/it proposes)
While we are working towards this, people will still dieÂ… and these are not casualties in the war against ignorance and apathy we should ignore or threat as unimportant like fmyk. In fact each of these deaths are a tragedy, and if one had a way to go protect them ethically would not one take it?
The current system of auto-opt in is certainly flawed as and in the way it has been implemented. However fmyk stumbles in asserting that auto-opt in automatically means SOLVENT GREENÂ… that was an automatic, and automatically flawed assumption on her part. She is correct in saying that it is currently sneaky, murky and fishyÂ… but most of what she says following that is pretty much nonsense, not to mention just as inhumane as the system she often criticizes.
What could be really changed? LetÂ’s see:
1. Auto opt in is currently the way to goÂ… but not as a solution to our problem of apathy but as a SAFETY NET to protect the rights of those who would suffer the weight of apathy in our society. The problem now is that our government has become lazy and sloppy about making it that way.
How can it be a safety net? By making by and by that our society at large is well informed on the auto-opt in procedure. This means that each and every Singaporean is well aware of the system and what to do if they want to opt out. Make sure everyone is aware of the system and the rules, allow those who want out to opt out, and those who are want in, or donÂ’t really care about if they are in or out to remain in. This means that deaths from otherwise wasted organs will be virtually eliminated.
2. Make sure there are proper checks and measures in place to prevent unlawful harvesting of organs. Improve transparency in the system and implement serious consequences for any breach of confidence when it comes to this issue.
All these things are of course a stopgap, but an important stopgap to have if we consider what is at stake here.
3. And of course, in the long term educating and working to change public opinion on this issue.
Almost anything would be better then fmykÂ’s obsessive and illogical regard for some particular rights over all others. -
Yes we all face death one day. It's confronting . Sure let's save the world. Forget the rights of others. Forget what they believe in . Just extract the organs from everyone regardless of religion or race for the greater good according to your arguments on humanity . How about that for humanity?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:So moving on shall we, letÂ’s cut a lot of the sub-arguments at get to the heart of the matter. At the end of the day, when all is said and done what exactly should be do about it?
I am not entirely sure fmykÂ’s idea of abolishing the entire thing and relying entirely on education and hoping to get the public to sign up to be a donor works- not as long as we are the kind of mentality we are currently and these are still very real lives being affect that we are talking here. fmyk is perhaps only concerned with protecting rights, but goes no further into the very real realities of the social, economic and emotional costs of organ failure to our society. The fact remains is this: that even as we struggle to educate our people to realize the value of being a donor very real people are dying. And fmykÂ’s dismissive attitude towards this as a non issue is highly disturbing, not to mention contradictory to her own passion for human rights.
In short his/her/itÂ’s solution is like having an idea for a cure-all for all the ills in societyÂ… but having no feasible way of implementing it without great costs in itself. Her method of an entirely elective donor program protects rights to the highest degreeÂ… not because it is a moral system but simply because it is a system that requires simply apathy and inaction to protect rights. All a person needs to do is not give two hoots, regardless of all the education he has been given to the contrary to defeat this. And know this: this person is mostly not a person who is even opposed to being a donor, but simply one that has no view on the issue or sees it as unimportant.
As they way we are currently, in is in many of our natures to avoid making choices if they are not necessary. As long as we make organ donation a by-the-way choice which we can put off if we want, people will die not because we elected not to donate, but because many of us simply didnÂ’t care, held no views on this issue, or were simply lazy to take the steps.
Now this translates to very real costs and loss, and not something that ought to be simply dismissed as “needing more education”, or “working to change mindsets.”. Granted all these things need to be done, but in the meantime a stopgap needs to be found to protect the people who are suffering the weight of apathy and indifference. fmyk’s solution of “needing more education” and “changing hearts and minds” works in theory, but can one implement this without incurring many deaths before it is finally achieved? In an idea society everybody has the conscience to make an educated and informed decision on this issue… but are we there yet? Until we are there how many will die?
More importantly, are these deaths needless casualties? fmyk has consistently asserted in her arguments that causalities are justifiedÂ… not from any real justification but simply that these deaths do not matter- in other words, she is pretty much saying that we should not worry about the deaths from organ failure while we go about changing our society. But by all indications this is not only fallacious but also greatly disturbing from a person who values human rights so much.
The reality is this: a lot of people who are potential donors from the circumstances of their demise end up not donating not because they are personally opposed to donation or want to preserve their body (like fmyk because she has “respect for nature and its ways”), but simply because they have no opinions about this issue (ie. they go “it’s okay or not if you take my organs, I don’t really care because I’m dead”), or worse, because they are simply lazy to decide on it, it being a non necessary choice… In which case how many people suffering from organ failure die needless or preventable deaths because people who had no opinion in the matter pro or con (in other words saying “do anything you want”) had wasted their organs on death? Somehow these needless deaths of mothers, fathers, sons and daughters dying is unimportant to fmyk because in as far she is concerned with rights and choice… even with those who have decided to remove themselves from making any choice or having any rights in the matter.
I do not find his/her/its position tenableÂ… in fact her position is a lot akin to high ended idealism with little grasp on reality. The reality is that a lot of organs have been wasted in the past and a lot of people have died needless deaths not from any opposition to donationÂ… but sheer indifference.
How to go about it. The only merit that fmyk has is that at least she manages to propose a solution, if but a weak one (not surprisingly given his/her/itÂ’s borderline regard for human life)Â… and that is education and working to change our society by taking the proper way out to transform it to the way it should be. However he/she/it pretty much stops there because as far as he/she/itÂ’s concerned, her rights are protected and the rest is irrelevant to his/her/itÂ’s consideration (ironically he/she/it is perhaps in need of the very education he/she/it proposes)
While we are working towards this, people will still dieÂ… and these are not casualties in the war against ignorance and apathy we should ignore or threat as unimportant like fmyk. In fact each of these deaths are a tragedy, and if one had a way to go protect them ethically would not one take it?
The current system of auto-opt in is certainly flawed as and in the way it has been implemented. However fmyk stumbles in asserting that auto-opt in automatically means SOLVENT GREENÂ… that was an automatic, and automatically flawed assumption on her part. She is correct in saying that it is currently sneaky, murky and fishyÂ… but most of what she says following that is pretty much nonsense, not to mention just as inhumane as the system she often criticizes.
Almost anything would be better then fmykÂ’s obsessive and illogical regard for some particular rights over all others.
Well that's too bad ,according to one forumner's reply, if the deceased or family did have the thought of body desecration as a sure way to hell !
Yes people are dying out there. From war, from famine, from disease, from crime. More so from poverty and malnutrition than organ failure. Technically going by all the arguments here in logic or illogic as you would call it , so should we take all the money from the rich and give to the poor in Africa now? Look there are people dying from famine and war in Africa right now!
Playing a guilt game on others who do not agree or questioning their humanity is certainly the worse way to go about things.
I have my own personal beliefs about how certain things should be played out in life and how those lists are ran. I also have my own right to my spiritual thoughts on organ donation. Tough if you cannot agree with me or cannot convince me otherwise. Using an emotional reason such as " You are so heartless because you don't give your organs" don't really work too well with me especially when I feel that donors ought to give consent not be opted in automatically.
I did offer up an idea of signing people up when they are making their IC or driver's licence. There will be a wide catchment area there and could be implemented much easily . They have to make the decision before the cards are issued. Won't it be better?
But no , there seem to be a focus on questioning my humanity which I find rather disturbing. -
The above comment comes from a forumner who also have the same argument of non-donors being selfish and automatic opt in suppporter .Originally posted by Kenashi:u meant yr cancerous cells huh
u dying soon, poor thing.
may u rot in hell soon or some other place where yr kind go after death
i don't even want to pity u cos u r not even worth it
And you fellas want to question my humanity or alleged heartlessness ? I find that absolutely laughable.
Well, it is kind of interesting to know although he claims to support lives through organ donorship , he also tends to curse a person with such ridiculous severity just because that person is in direct conflict with him on certain aspects of the thread.
As for those who strongly said that I am heartless because I argue on the premise of supporting individual rights first: if you cannot be bothered opting in prior to the scheme citing lack of time while knowing the real issues at heart, who are you to call me heartless or imply that I am inhumane in the first place?
You are just no better than what you make me out to be. Citing lack of time or cannot be bothered signing up is not a justification of your so called self righteous humanitarian cause towards an automatic opt in system to gain organ donations.
All you can see is the 'waste of organs' . Among all reasons, I also refused to be treated like a piece of machinery to be cannibalised through the opt in system - I would have much prefered it if I was treated with some respect to what I might have done with my body by giving me some knowledge and benefit of organ donation, then the coin could probably have flipped the other way - do you have an issue with my view on that?
I don't mind a voluntary opt in system where the organ status is stated on your IC or driver's licence. Singapore is well placed to do that with all our NRIC cards or driver licence cards.
At least I got my own reasons as nonsensical as it sounds to some of you but it is quite valid to me. At least I have discussed it with my family and bothered to sign out of the system rather than to run my family through the painful task of deciding last minute in my sudden demise of what to do with me.
At least for sure, I know I am no hypocrite. -
Yes we all face death one day. It's confronting . Sure let's save the world. Forget the rights of others. Forget what they believe in . Just extract the organs from everyone regardless of religion or race for the greater good according to your arguments on humanity . How about that for humanity?
Need I point out to you who's the emotional one here?
In an ideal world, yes, everybody would realize and understand that being a donor is a good thing and that everyone should do it. However we are not yet (if we shall ever be) in that kind of world.
But more importantly, it follows if it we should be working towards such a world. You seem to be perfectly happy with your rights as long as life does not deal you a crappy hand. In other words, yes you have rights... but one wonders really what you are using this ability to choose for.
What it means is that yes, if we realize what is the right thing to do, we would be doing whatever we can to reduce poverty, disease, war and what have you not.
Yes people are dying out there. From war, from famine, from disease, from crime. More so from poverty and malnutrition than organ failure. Technically going by all the arguments here in logic or illogic as you would call it , so should we take all the money from the rich and give to the poor in Africa now? Look there are people dying from famine and war in Africa right now!
Is not the rich-poor divide caused by selfishness? The difference is that I intend to find a pratical solution within our means to help out the best we can... you seem to think since this is the way of things that we shouldn't entertain any thoughts that it should be any other way.
Indeed if all the wealth of the rich nations could be pratically distributed without destroying much of the world infrastructure... would not this be the right thing to do? Please look at the Jewish Jubilee for an understanding of how such a thing has been traditionally carried out.Playing a guilt game on others who do not agree or questioning their humanity is certainly the worse way to go about things.
Why do you always see this as a guilt game? Unless on some level you know that you are making an inherently selfish choice and am attempting to deny it?
I have my own personal beliefs about how certain things should be played out in life and how those lists are ran. I also have my own right to my spiritual thoughts on organ donation. Tough if you cannot agree with me or cannot convince me otherwise. Using an emotional reason such as " You are so heartless because you don't give your organs" don't really work too well with me especially when I feel that donors ought to give consent not be opted in automatically.
People with proper convictions will never see how much attempts to direct them at the wrongness of their actions as a guilt trip. They know what is right and what is wrong.
Unfortunately the very fact you seem to think of the fact that people highlight your actions as inherently selfish as a "guilt" trip is rather telling that you don't really even fully understand (or prehaps don't want to understand) your own position because if you faced the naked reality of it, you indeed would feel guilty.
Sadly it is hard to deny that your actions will have serious consequences on other people... worse still that there is a means of rectifying this. Basically speaking, people are pointing out the natural conclusion of your actions, which you have studiously tried to deny and call a "guilt trip."
But the real question is: who is the quilty one here? who is the one trying not to see?But no , there seem to be a focus on questioning my humanity which I find rather disturbing.
If you seek to question the humanity of others by your constant harping of SOLVENT GREEN and humans as livestock... please do not be surprised if others examine your position for any sign of self-contradiction... of which plenty is found.
And yes, going by much of what you said so far... one tends to wonder if your very humanity cannot be found to be suspect. There are two types of people who insist on rights- those that believe that rights are a good thing for people to have and those which are merely selfish. Which one are you?
As and so far I have no issue with consent- the main and most tragic thing is wastage from uncertainty. If we could create any system that removes all uncertainty in any way I am all for it. The current system is not perfect and there are many things I disagree with... unfortunately your proposed solutions puts the bomb on the wrong side of the wall when it comes to the uncertain times.
When all else fails and all is uncertain, one ought to act in interest of the living and not the dead... unless the dead have explictly made this cause of actions to be taken after death apparent.
Indeed what are your personal convictions for opting out? Do you dare have them examined here or prehaps you have realized that they are irrational and you can't really justify them beyond an arbitary choice to listen to your own animal nature?
But if it is an irrational choice coming from your animal nature... what human rights can you really demand from it? Any way we look at it, it is an abuse of the right you are given, not the use of it. By the very use of the word "right", you have assumed that we ought to act like human beings with reason and not like animals. If you are paranoid or irrational, what right do you have to make your choice? It is just by a loophole of law and goodwill that soceity allows your mindset to prevail.
Just food for thought. It would be good for you to provide a proper reason for you opting out beyond a gravely inadequate: "it is my right and I don't have to feel guilty about it."You are just no better than what you make me out to be. Citing lack of time or cannot be bothered signing up is not a justification of your so called humanitarian drive towards an automatic opt in system to gain organ donations.
Please don't put your foot into your mouth. If you examine my post with even the most basic of reading skills surely you must have caught onto the fact that I am pointing out indifference and laziness in this affair is a social problem with real costs to which needs a proper safety to those who will pay the ultimate price for it? Did I say that this behaviour ought to contuine? In our case what is the humananitarian thing to do? Be narrowly focused on your little fight for rights? You miss the forrest for the trees, my dear.
If a house is on fire you save your most important things first before you try to put out the fire. In your case, you seem to think that unless we can come up with the best way to put out the fire, nothing's worth saving for now.At least for sure, I know I am no hypocrite.
You would be surely, and sadly deluded, given your insistence on the right to choice but yet choosing to avoid the responsibility of choice.
I do not mean to tear your arguments to shreds... but given the general quality of your justifications and half-hearted counterarguments... can one help but do so? -
You want proper reasons from me? I already listed some of them before and stupidissmart accused me of influencing others. So just for the sake of his reference , you asked the question and I answered out in the open. These are the answers ranked according to importance.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Just food for thought. It would be good for you to provide a proper reason for you opting out beyond a gravely inadequate: "it is my right and I don't have to feel guilty about it."
First, to prepare for transplantation you need to keep the body alive for a while sometimes to the moment of removal. I have moral and religious objections to that aspect of transplantation. There are cases of botched organ transplant donors who were just taken off the ventilator so that they will DIE and donate their organs to someone else. even though they were given a variable rate of survival. I found it extremely distasteful and disgusting which comes down to reason number 2. Look at this link for further details: http://www.wf-f.org/02-3-OrganDonation.html
Second, I have a general mistrust of the government and the health structures. The mistrust is great enough from my personal experience.
Third , it is my firm belief should I ever choose to be a cadaveric donor - I would be willing to overwrite reason no. 1 for my relatives who will have preference over those on the list when it comes to my organs if they are on the list . Less chance of organ rejection and they know it is from me and will treat it with respect.
Fourth , I have seen how rejected organs are treated . Let me put it this way in case someone accuses me of discouraging people from donating again. My organs work well for me and they are a part of me now since I am alive. I would like my organs to be treated with respect and I would like to buried with me if they are rejected from the recipient's body. However this will never happen.
Those are my reasons for not donating. Might not be valid enough for you but it is valid enough for me.
Below is what someone has written so poignantly about the same aspects I am commenting on which you deem such a humanitarian insult. Of course , I am not a very eloquent person." Organ donation has become a kind of sacred cow - in our society today no one is supposed to criticize any aspect of it lest lives be lost. But as in any other issue involving ethical principles, we must be sure that a desired good end does not justify any and every means of accomplishing that end."
First an auto opt in ....next time don't be surprised if the policy changes to below given the perchant of policymakers for only listening to scholars.
That is why I am strongly support rights in this matter."We propose that individuals who desire to donate their organs and who are either neurologically devastated or imminently dying should be allowed to donate their organs, without first being declared dead". - Robert D. Truog, MD, FCCM;Walter M. Robinson, MD, MPH, Critical Care Medicine.
-
Are you choosing to eat only one portion of your meal and leave the rest untouched? Are you content to work to the amount you deem fit while avoiding looking at the duty sheet on the wall to see what really needs to be done?
Unfortunately it seems you have only acquainted yourself with but one side of the issue, this is quite evident from the fact the links you provided are but to support your own view without truly accounting for any counter arguments. More surprisingly, you even let OM (of all people!) debunk one of them. Does this go to show that you do not do proper research and are but wanting/trying to believe what you want to believe. Unfortunately there are plenty of immediate answers to your doubts and fears but it seems that you have not even started to look into them, given that even OM could stop one of your arguments.
But your failings to present an honest case aside have you actually gone on to fully explore your questions about organ donation? Or are you content to sit on a bunch of reasons that you feel boosters your case sufficiently, some of which have proven false.
It is no surprise our governmental scheme on organ donation inspires no confidence, however you have come to mistake the theory of the thing with the very way it is often abused and applied. This is no surprise considering you often invoke rights without knowing the “theory of rights” in the first place. Which often begs the question… if you know nothing of your rights, what gives you the rights to assert them in the first place? But I digress.
Back to the issue- it is indeed unfortunate you have chosen as you did for the simple reason the system is flawed. You cannot seriously think that your opting out is any form of a remedy, answer or protest to either the question of unethical governmental policies or the very real question of organ failure. In regards your actions are but a measure of self-preservation- in which regards you do not need to justify your actions for everyone understands it as an animal instinct. But then it means thereÂ’s really no need for you to discuss anything in here for indeed you never had a stance to begin with.
But for the sake of an argument, letÂ’s assume you actually have a stance you intend to justify (which you have by and so far failed to even put up a proper indication of that). The question is this: despite all the unethical governmental policies and clout what is the appropriate thing to do? After weighting all the options it is still a rather inexorable conclusion that the right thing to do would still be to help those suffering from organ failure when our lives are more or so over, as opposed to trying to thwart a flawed policy. Doctors still treat criminals even through they know these people are a danger to society.
The question is this? How does one deal with the unethical aspects of this issue then? Certainly not by your studious avoidance of it by exercising this thing called “choice”. I am all for changing the flawed policies, making people more involved, rooting out the dark practices in this life-saving trade and what have you not… however as and when we do our value judgements, at the end of the day one realizes there is still more then enough justification to be an organ donor in Singapore.
Just because there is exploitation and abuse does not preclude the validity and need of a certain thing. In the same way, has anyone decided to censor you considering how you have been indeed abusing your freedom of speech?
At the end of the say, you have demonstrated quite clearly by your words: Whatever justifications that make you see post-mortem organ donation as disgusting due to its darker abuses and what have you not are but a convenient strap-on to your key ideology of often irrational post-mortem self-preservation. It is proven quite clearly your lack of disgust and dismissive attitude at the needless deaths in our society as an issue of flippant choice. Do you really need anybody to declare such a stance hypocritical? The very fact that you sought to defend yourself from the term even before I bothered to raise it shows that it is rather clear to everyone and yourself.
Your lack of ability to see both sides of the issue is what truly kills your position in here, not your lack of eloquence (which can be overcome with good reason) or strong reason (which can be overcome with honesty). You obsesses so much over the warts and flaws and rush headlong into defending your rights that you do not mind contradicting yourself to do itÂ… ironically destroying whatever reason you had in the first place. As I saidÂ… if you do not care for the consequences of your actions, what right did you have to them in the first place? If you do not truly see all the alternativesÂ… what true choice have your ever made?
If your reason seem justified to you, it can only be from denial of a most studious kind… the kind that encourages this thing called “survival of the fittest”. Is it any surprise your actions not only do not change the policy, but instead draw out the excesses in it? I said it before: it’s like trying to find the best way to put out a house on fire without saving the most important things first.First an auto opt in ....next time don't be surprised if the policy changes to below given the perchant of policymakers for only listening to scholars.
If you havenÂ’t noticedÂ… we are already de-facto in that state.
That is why I am strongly support rights in this matter.
But what allowed us to get to such a state? Precisely mentalities such as yours- those who chose to go along with their half-justifications and faulty logics to insist on a particular course of action and define it as approved because it is “right”. Is not this the kind of mentality that allowed such a culture of governance to arise in the first place?Those are my reasons for not donating. Might not be valid enough for you but it is valid enough for me.
Which once again proves your rather huge error in judgement when realizing facts. In things like this there are no “valid for you” or “valid for me” reasons, simply either valid or invalid reasons. Even if I was not here to contradict you (or even be aware of your stance), it would have no bearing on the validity of your reasons. As in quantum physics as they might say, you collapse your own wave function.
Truth will be truth and I am not surprised you are experiencing cognitive dissonance because your “valid” reasons become “invalid” to yourself when you try to weight them against other things. If I am here or not hardly has any bearing to the fact that you have rather failed to provide a sufficient answer to the questions raised against you.
I am not really here to tear you down or what… all I can say is that for the sake of many people for whom this is life and death… do educate yourself on this topic properly before making huge opinions and you will realize it is not anymore a guilt trip then a person pointing out a rather real and unpleasant consequence of your “stance” cannot avoid bringing some discomfort to you. Truly you have proven yourself to be the emotional one here, perhaps it’s time you see beyond that. -
Actually initially I wanna give it a rest but your latest reply seems to be targeted on me as a person. Since u desire an answer from me so much, here it goes
I can beak down all our recent arguments into the same old points
1) Free speech
NOBODY, I repeat, NOBODY say u cannot have free speech. And u practise your free speech by saying watever u like. But U have to be responsible for wat u say. Free speech doesn't means u can wildly accuse anything and expect no one to hold wat u say as accoutable. In america where there r free speech, politician still have to be careful of wat they say because people r gonna held u accountable for the things u said. Nobody is charging u or arresting u for making statements. U get your free speech. But people r forming their opinion of u by the things u say and their impact. If u have been careless about your speech, don't blame it on the notion of free speech
2) Discouraging organ donation
U claim u have not discourage organ donation, but on many aspect especially in the earlier pages, u did discourage donation. There r many replies which u give tat discourage people from organ donation. U claim making statements such as doctors harvesting organs before u die, or do not want to tilt nature balance, tat life after getting a organ is still terrible and many others statement. Now how on earth can u say u never discourage people from donating organs ? U r stating your point, and your points discourage people from donating organs. If tis is not discouraging people from donating organs, then wat is discouraging people from donating organs ?
3) Name calling
The exchange goes both ways. I have admitted I am lazy and do not filled out the form at my inconvenience. I have also stated tat there r many people who r like me as well. But tis is a point which u conveniently forget and never reply to it. About the point of heartless, it is plainly because watching a person die without lifting a finger to help, and encouraging people not to help, is heartless. It takes 2 hands to clap. U yourself r guilty of making others go through "guilt trip" by constantly repeating the fact tat I am lazy and heartless etc.
4) Religious issue
I have already clearly stated tat the chances of misrepresentation for a religious person is very low. I have also stated tat the world cannot cater to all the very low chances of things tat happened, such as the molest case. We r not living in the ideal world and we have to make a stand to protect the majority of society. In tis case, many people could have saved versus the very low possibility tat a miscommunication occured. And your scenario of accidental donating of person is ridiculously low. Do u want me to state how low it is again ?
5) Rights of choice
Nobody force u to donate your organs. U can choose not to donate all u want. But then u go beyond your rights and start a campaign tat suggest organs donations is causing yourself danger, then we should be suspicious of the gov and opt out, and doctors harvesting your organs before your time, of tilting balance lopsided, of not eliminating the weaker people in society etc.
Now tis is not about your personal rights anymore, it becomes a debate on whether should people donate their organs to the pros and cons of an auto opt in system. U just say tat people should deliberately choose auto opt out, but when they told u the numbers is not enough, more population simply don't care for the issue and don't mind donating, it is for the general good of the socity, your points become repeated and u simply state we should adopt an auto opt out system. Your points tat religious people mistakenly donate their organs have already been countered in (4). Wat other points do u have ?
6) Education
It is already shown in the MOH website tat certain measures have been taken to ensure people know about the HOTA. There is a website on it, he send a note to every address, they print the newspaper twice yearly in all 4 official languages, they have the necessary forms etc at the public hospital, they inform PR and newly joined citizen, they teach the children during moral education, the head of religion is informed of its decision and it spend 1/2 year trying to inform the public of HOTA. It is easy for u to say tat it is not enough, they should do more etc. But wat exactly is enough ? They can spend millions every and print the newspaper everyday and u will still say it is not enough. Which part of the population do not know about HOTA after these measures have been taken ?
Lastly about the reply on Keneshi, please read wat he is replying to foomee88
Nothing 2 said cauz my c is 2 big 4 yr mouth!!!!
Com'on man. Tis is plain vulgarities. Do u blame him for replying the reply he gave ? -
do u really care about being in one piece or buried in the same place after u r dead? is it about religon that say that if yr body r not in one piece, u won't find peace in yr afterlife??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.
the same thing can be said about u then, ppl can also say that u got this mental block which cannot make u more generous??? just follow some ppl's thinking who want to keep their body to themselves??
everyone got their own way of thinking, we ain't sheep???
if u choose to do what u want with yr body, no one can said u r right or wrong. -
Originally posted by fymk:
i have seen relatives who block harvesting of organs even when the deceased signed the consent form. they can said that the deceased don't know what he is doing n delay the process until the organs are unusable.
What a piece of crappy argument that violates the right of a person to consent to the use of his body.
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. [b] 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. [/b]
think of it this way, a part of yr relative is still living on this earth, in the recipient's body. -
i can't see a lack of proper education get uOriginally posted by foomwee88:May God bless u to live through this CNY!!!!
As a Gods will never has a happy ending in life!!!!
furthermore i don't have a god n i ain't a god -
Originally posted by fymk:
yeah n u r a very selective looker.
The above comment comes from a forumner who also have the same argument of non-donors being selfish and automatic opt in suppporter .
And you fellas want to question my humanity or alleged heartlessness ? I find that absolutely laughable.
Well, it is kind of interesting to know although he claims to support lives through organ donorship , he also tends to curse a person with such ridiculous severity just because that person is in direct conflict with him on certain aspects of the thread.
As for those who strongly said that I am heartless because I argue on the premise of supporting individual rights first: if you cannot be bothered opting in prior to the scheme citing lack of time while knowing the real issues at heart, who are you to call me heartless or imply that I am inhumane in the first place?
[b] You are just no better than what you make me out to be. Citing lack of time or cannot be bothered signing up is not a justification of your so called self righteous humanitarian cause towards an automatic opt in system to gain organ donations.
All you can see is the 'waste of organs' . Among all reasons, I also refused to be treated like a piece of machinery to be cannibalised through the opt in system - I would have much prefered it if I was treated with some respect to what I might have done with my body by giving me some knowledge and benefit of organ donation, then the coin could probably have flipped the other way - do you have an issue with my view on that?
I don't mind a voluntary opt in system where the organ status is stated on your IC or driver's licence. Singapore is well placed to do that with all our NRIC cards or driver licence cards.
At least I got my own reasons as nonsensical as it sounds to some of you but it is quite valid to me. At least I have discussed it with my family and bothered to sign out of the system rather than to run my family through the painful task of deciding last minute in my sudden demise of what to do with me.
At least for sure, I know I am no hypocrite. [/b]
u only see what u want to see.
any reasonable person who seen what i am replying to, can't really fault me.
i find it laughable that u called us a hypocrite when u sound like a bigger fraud than us combined. u still so sure, u ain't a hypocrite -
Not really. You are just plainly dismissing the other side of the argument on organ donations lightly and taking the convenient and patronising moral high ground with me. Emotional argument - that is what you are using too as much as you like to think otherwise.
Truth will be truth and I am not surprised you are experiencing cognitive dissonance because your “valid” reasons become “invalid” to yourself when you try to weight them against other things. If I am here or not hardly has any bearing to the fact that you have rather failed to provide a sufficient answer to the questions raised against you.
I am not really here to tear you down or what… all I can say is that for the sake of many people for whom this is life and death… do educate yourself on this topic properly before making huge opinions and you will realize it is not anymore a guilt trip then a person pointing out a rather real and unpleasant consequence of your “stance” cannot avoid bringing some discomfort to you. Truly you have proven yourself to be the emotional one here, perhaps it’s time you see beyond that.
[/b]
Let me point out that NONE of you have ACTUALLY tried to rebuff about harvesting organs from functioning bodies except for one who seems to think that accidents happen and " too bad " if it happens , and one absolutely absurd allegation that I am USING it to discourage people. How the heck do they keep organs from deteriorating - ask yourself this. That is why I prefer to have people KNOW the FULL disclosure of how transplants are ran and then make the decision themselves.
Informed consent applies both ways to the living and the dead . The dead person should never be seen as a source of organs . That is my moral belief that the dead person used to be a living human being with loved ones . Doctors take full consent of surgeries and the risks involved - I am sure OM will be well aware of the Bollam Test when it comes down to informed consent. Likewise I want people to have the full disclosure of what happens when they harvest organs from them other than the usual practice of explaining that "your body will be treated with utmost respect". I am for informed consent. Like it or not.
There are some people who seen the positive side of things at work . I am one of the unfortunate ones who seen the negative side of things at work which influences me. The only exception I will make is for my family to receive my organs if they are unfortunate to be on the list because love of a parent /a sibling conquers even religion.
I never ever took up organ donationship because of my reasons . Either you can choose to respect them or you can blatantly go on your crusade about how selfish people are or inhumane if they do not donate their organs.
I opted out the moment the HOTA came on. And there is not only me out there with such a thought - there are plenty in the world. If I am half hearted , I would not bother. If I am convinced, I will do it. Right now I am opted out. So I am not that confused after all .
" Organ donation has become a kind of sacred cow - in our society today no one is supposed to criticize any aspect of it lest lives be lost. But as in any other issue involving ethical principles, we must be sure that a desired good end does not justify any and every means of accomplishing that end." -
well, first of all, the harvesting of organs is from the deceased.Originally posted by fymk:
u r worried about they harvesting yr organs when u r alive???
that's just like u worrying that the sky is going to fall n the government didn't do anything about it.
what is there to rebuff??
there are always some black sheep somewhere in this world, someone who will break the rules or laws, that doesn't meant that everyone is going to do it.
u don't like the system, u can opt out. that's it. -
Once the body is dead - the organs deteriorate rapidly - full shutdown so actually no you cannot say it is in death that they remove it . The body is then supported artificially or so it is claimed while they search for a proper recipient. Let me see - do they actually take the organs out while measuring the blood pressure and heartbeat of the donor? It is easy to find surgical procedures and processes on live patients but it is very difficult to find the organ harvesting procedure out in the open.Originally posted by Kenashi:well, first of all, the harvesting of organs is from the deceased.
u r worried about they harvesting yr organs when u r alive???
that's just like u worrying that the sky is going to fall n the government didn't do anything about it.
what is there to rebuff??
there are always some black sheep somewhere in this world, someone who will break the rules or laws, that doesn't meant that everyone is going to do it.
u don't like the system, u can opt out. that's it.
So can someone kindly educate me if I am wrong?
I am sure that MOH's the standard method of determining death is brain death . In the old days ,it was confirmed through ceased brain and cardiac functions . But in donor days, cessation of cardiac function means degeneration of organs - aka poor quality organs, so they pick brain death.
I would like to point out as well that none of us has ever crossed that barrier and returned to tell which is the right method of declaring a death. So I would not want to be at the end of the scalpel if it is not correct.
Yes I opted out. But I would like to see MOH and the doctors give full disclosure to their unsuspecting donors of what the transplant procedure entails . That is a principle I always have - informed consent to be taken in every single procedure. If you cannot agree with that but choose to argue with me on the moral high ground then really that's too bad - yes you backed a winner of saving lives but you are in fact apathic. -
Firstly, I dont see why they should take our organs out for the benefit of others, call me selfish, whatever. How many people, esp the older generations actually heard of this auto opt in thing, dont we have rights to our own body?Originally posted by Kenashi:do u really care about being in one piece or buried in the same place after u r dead? is it about religon that say that if yr body r not in one piece, u won't find peace in yr afterlife??
the same thing can be said about u then, ppl can also say that u got this mental block which cannot make u more generous??? just follow some ppl's thinking who want to keep their body to themselves??
everyone got their own way of thinking, we ain't sheep???
if u choose to do what u want with yr body, no one can said u r right or wrong.
In actual fact, imho, I sincerely dont think the gov has done enough to educate the people on how this whole system works. As you said, if i want to choose what I want to do with my body, who are they to take it out without the actual consent. There are cases whereby after a few years where the "victim" is declared brain dead, the "victim" just wakes up suddenly, with no brain/body defects. What if one day, your wife is so called declared brain-dead and they wanna remove her organs, then maybe only until then you'll get what im saying. Im entitled to my opinion as well. -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
I cannot be bothered about your other points because I think you are just running around in circles with me on that. However I gladly take you up on this one.
6) Education
It is already shown in the MOH website tat certain measures have been taken to ensure people know about the HOTA. There is a website on it, he send a note to every address, they print the newspaper twice yearly in all 4 official languages, they have the necessary forms etc at the public hospital, they inform PR and newly joined citizen, they teach the children during moral education, the head of religion is informed of its decision and it spend 1/2 year trying to inform the public of HOTA. It is easy for u to say tat it is not enough, they should do more etc. But wat exactly is enough ? They can spend millions every and print the newspaper everyday and u will still say it is not enough. Which part of the population do not know about HOTA after these measures have been taken ?
First of all : Education doesn't only mean that you get told that you are saving lives or the picture of the nurse carrying the life saving organ to a hospital .Prior authorisation from the Transplant Ethics Committees (TEC) is required before a living donor organ transplant can proceed. The TEC would have to be satisfied that two major professional and ethical concerns are adequately addressed. First, the donor thoroughly understands the nature and consequence of the medical procedures and has given his or her full informed consent.
The above pertains to living donors. I cannot see why they should not apply the first premise to potential cadaveric donors and their families.The donor's body will always be treated with the greatest respect by the transplant team. Any incisions that are made during the removal of organs will be carefully stitched up after the procedure. In the case of cornea donation, an artificial lens will be inserted after the cornea is removed, to cover up the defect.
Absolutely unacceptable for education.The seven clinical criteria for determining irreversible cessation of all functions of the brain are as follows:
Unacceptable but oh wait . There are sedatives which can overcome a criteria like that . There are freak cases which do not comply with the criteria. More to come about supplementary tests.
1. the pupils are fixed and non-reactive to strong light
2. there is no corneal reflex;
3. there is no spontaneous motor response to painful stimulus, excluding spinal reflexes,
4. there is no oculeocephalic reflex;
5. there is no gag reflex or reflex response to tracheobronchial stimulation;
6. there is no vestibule-ocular response on instillation of 50 cubic centimetres of ice-cold water into each ear; and
7. there is no spontaneous respiration even with carbon dioxide tension at 50 millimetres or more or mercury.
These tests are to assess whether there is any response to various physical stimuli such as light, touch and pain. Brain death can only be certified if all seven clinical criteria are met.The supplementary tests are to complement the clinical tests. They are not a substitute for the clinical criteria. If six of the seven clinical tests can be performed, the criteria for these six tests must be fully met, that is 6 upon 6, before the doctor proceeds to carry out an ancillary test.
Still unacceptable. They are just a complement not a confirmation even though there could be brain waves going on. I would assume ( due to my lack of education in this area) that brain death can still be declared .
All in all unacceptable when it is a life involved. And like I said - no one has ever returned from the afterlife to tell us whether that method of declaring death is correct. There are however some who returned from the afterlife who saw the great white light when they were actually pronounced as dead. So I think I rather trust the latter than the former.
I am sure that there are a lot of individuals who would be interested in details of how organs are harvested from a presumably dead person. Body kept alive on ventilator or not? Heartbeat and blood pressure measured after death prior to organ removal or not? Anaesthetics used in procurement or paralysing agents ( yes those are used in harvesting) ? If there is a need for paralysing agents - why? If anaesthetics - why?
Those are valid questions and they deserve to get some real answers. Come on! -
oei. new year still want to argue.
-
too bad u live in singapore, they r the government, they will act on it, law by law.Originally posted by gLc:Firstly, I dont see why they should take our organs out for the benefit of others, call me selfish, whatever. How many people, esp the older generations actually heard of this auto opt in thing, dont we have rights to our own body?
In actual fact, imho, I sincerely dont think the gov has done enough to educate the people on how this whole system works. As you said, if i want to choose what I want to do with my body, who are they to take it out without the actual consent. There are cases whereby after a few years where the "victim" is declared brain dead, the "victim" just wakes up suddenly, with no brain/body defects. What if one day, your wife is so called declared brain-dead and they wanna remove her organs, then maybe only until then you'll get what im saying. Im entitled to my opinion as well.
at least this time, u got the option of opt out rather than the HDB blunder
so u going to hang on to a person who is declared brain dead until u see her rot and start decomposing then u will finally admit that she is dead huh??
if u can't even believe the doctor who sworn an oath to help every patient, i don't really know who u can believe anymore??? -
we got too much time on our handsOriginally posted by Ito_^:oei. new year still want to argue.