HOTA: Opt Out and You are Marked...!
-
Well, apparently stupidity has its price as well huh.Originally posted by charlize:Hey they are the ones getting paid million dollar salaries to think up of such stuff.
-
hi guys
im currently a student studying in JC...
i understand that im still quite young amongst all of u veterans, so please duo duo chi jiao.
i was randomly surfing the net when i came across this forum topic
i have been doing research on the HOTA act for almost 2 months now as part of a school project me and a few friends are initiating.
having read through all the posts so far, i would like to give you guys my 2 cents worth.
Firstly, I understand that many of you are very uncomfortable with the idea of HOTA. it is indeed after all, quite dubious.
" All non-Muslim Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents between the ages of 21 and 60 years are included under HOTA. They will have priority in receiving a cadaveric organ if they need one. However, they can also opt out of HOTA if they do not wish to donate their organs when they die "
Before beginning my research on organ donation in Singapore, i was also quite against the idea of HOTA as well. seriously, who wants to be forced to donate their organs?
But having read through many articles over the past few weeks, watching videos on organ donation, scrutinizing and mugging the details in the HOTA scheme etc.. i've come to realize that HOTA is essentially a scheme that benefits us all, albeit it has its loopholes.
Firstly, many people are afraid that doctors will not try their best to save them if they are included in HOTA
Actually right, if you all go read up more about HOTA, you will realize that the medical team working for the organ transplant is completely seperate from the doctors and nurses that are trying to save you.
In other words, when you are sick, you go to doctor, the doctor will try to save you. When you fall even sicker, the doctor will try even harder to save you... (because he gets more $$$) IF you really fall into a COMA, you will be kept alive. a COMA does not equal brain dead.
However, only when you REALLY BRAIN DEAD, and the doctors cannot earn any more $$$ out of trying to save you because there is NO WAY TO SAVE A BRAIN DEAD PERSON, the medical organ transplant team will be contacted.
secondly, to clarify about Muslims and why they arent included in HOTA
Muslims are not included inside because of religious reasons. the islamic religion requires their bodies to be complete when they are dead.
Then how is this fair? Well, Muslims by default will NOT receive the same priority as other people who have pledged their organs through the HOTA scheme.
However, Muslims can opt in into the Medical (Therapy, Education and Research) ACT (MTERA)
this act is essentially the same as HOTA, except that its an opt-in scheme, and it includes ALL organs and tissue (HOTA only includes 4) So, for Muslims who choose to opt-in into MTERA, they will be given same priority as people who are inside HOTA
simple as that.
Just for additional information, organ donation is actually supported by the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS).
"The Fatwa Committee's view is that these latest amendments under HOTA (in 2004) are permissable, according to islamic religious laws and principles. A Muslim can donate his or her kidney, heart, liver and cornea with consent of one next-of-kin and witnessed by another person" - MUIS Fatwas
moral issues regarding hota. is it right to force people to donate their organs?
i understand the moral ambiguity exists. Due to the flaws of human nature, no man can depict what is morally good or bad. that power can only be given to God.
however, i would like to put forth my point of view...
i just cook up this story on the spot....
Peter is an ordinary 39 year-old Singaporean, middle class, works in part-time jobs and is very good at counterstrike. One day, he receives a letter informing him about HOTA.
"HOTA? donate organ? siao ah? why i want to donate organ for? my organ is my organ... give people for what? If i say yes, then next time doctor wont save me when im dying. They will purposely make me die so they can kope my organs! this is crap man. im opting out! if i really need organ someday, i will go overseas and buy"
Samuel is Peter's best friend. He has a good heart, and is essentially a very good person. Unfortunately, he is a terrible smoker. In fact, all his friends continually discourage him from smoking but he is not convinced. he has already suffered from stroke 5 times over, but still thinks he is invincible and challeges himself to smoke 2000 sticks by his next birthday, which is next week. however, he strongly believes in saving lives through organ donation, and stays in HOTA.
Kevin is a random passerby. He is rich and stingy, hates children, and enjoys kicking cats on sidewalks when no-one is looking. However, when he receives his HOTA letter, he completely forgets about replying to it and as a result, he stays in the HOTA scheme...
One day, Samuel and Peter were hanging out watching EPL when Samuel suddenly jerks about and spasms like crazy and got unconcious. Peter panicks and calls the ambulance....
At the hospital, the doctor tells Peter the bad news. Samuel is diagnosed with heart failure and requires a heart transplant within a week or he will die. Peter is DEVASTATED. He has no idea what to do. Something like this has never happened. Watching his poor friend through the glass window, he unknowingly sheds a tear...
The next day, Peter is on his way to visit Samuel at the hospital. Suay suay while crossing a zebra crossing, Kevin while driving his sports car, KNOCKS PETER down!
Peter instantly dies on the spot, but right outside the hospital. kevin suffers a head concussion and is brought into ICU immediately. Doctors try and try to cure him, because kevin is a rich man and can pay them well.
unfortunately, he is brain dead. there is no way he can be saved.
Now, the whole irony of the story kicks in.
Samuel needs a heart transplant. Being in the HOTA scheme, he is eligible to obtain an organ from another HOTA dead patient.
Peter just died, but he cannot donate his heart althoguh he would dearly want to, to save his best friend. Why? because hes not in HOTA. As a result, he dies a lonely death, with his heart being wasted away (along with all the other organs)
Kevin, who is an evil person at heart, has had no chance to spend his lifetime of wealth. He is declared brain dead, and the doctors decide to harvest his heart, to save Samuel.
So, the ending is that Samuel, the foolish smoker who takes like 20 sticks a day, is saved. Peter wastes his organs away, although he wished he could have given them to his best friend. and Kevin, who is a big bastard, does something good for once in his life, but sadly never ever gets to spend his accumulated wealth.
the moral of the story?
Life is unfair. It is very unfair. The good can be punished severely, while the bad are given second chances when they dont deserve it. Really, theres nothing we can do to make life a fair battle.
But, we can at least try to make things fairer.
This is exactly what hota is about.
to make organ donation a much fairer procedure.
You sacrifice a little of yourself in exchange for protection from organ failure in future. IF you choose not to sacrifice yourself, then you get no protection whatsoever lor. it is really quite fair.
as for making HOTA and opt-out scheme rather an opt-in scheme...
back in the days when HOTA was opt in, only 5 organ transplants were made a year. honestly, would anyone in their right mind opt-in, unless they are super-kind hearted? it really isnt worth the effort (must fill up form some more)
Since the change in HOTA to make it an opt-out system.
almost 1 organ transplant is made everyday. yes, 1 bloody life is saved everyday, compared to the miserable 5 a year. it really is quite effective.
So. in conclusion. with the implementation of HOTA.
THE SAME NUMBER OF PEOPLE DIE FROM ACCIDENTS.
THE SAME NUMBER OF PEOPLE DIE FROM BRAIN DEATH
A LOT LESS PEOPLE DIE FROM ORGAN FAILURES BECAUSE
A LOT MORE ORGANS ARE NO LONGER BEING WASTED.
this is my 2 cents worth. since embarking on the project, i have never looked back. compared to NKF and all that crap, this is a much worthy cause.
*btw did you know that statiscally,
you have a much higher chance of receiving an organ due to organ failure, than actually dying in an appropriate manner so that your organs are harvested for HOTA? =) * -
There's still a "stench" somewhere within HOTA...
regardless how lengthy the explanation about it is...
-
Decide yourself.
If you are not happy about HOTA then opt out.
If you do not mind HOTA, then let it be.
No point whining.
You may not like it, but others don't mind.
Anyway the majority of the deceased pass away unmolested. I don't have the figure, but it may be 99% or more pass away without their organs harvested.
So most likely all this kpkb is unnecessay.
The relatives of the few that have the organs harvested usually approve of if.
So far only one case turned ugly in Singapore.
You are given a way to escape what you do not like.
Take it.
If HOTA is scraped, I tell you, another group will rise, and campaign for organ harvesting. -
Originally posted by mancha:
If this lot don't whine they have nothing else to do. Don't take away their raison d'etre in life
Decide yourself.
If you are not happy about HOTA [b]then opt out.
If you do not mind HOTA, then let it be.
No point whining.
You may not like it, but others don't mind.[/b]
HOTA has saved many more lives since its implementation. Those who object to organ transplant from brain dead victims can indeed opt out and should be placed at the back of the queue if they need an organ themselves. Actually, I think it is disingenuous to object to organ transplants harvested from brain dead donors but expect to receive one when they are in need of one themselves. If you opt out of HOTA, you should not get an organ harvested under HOTA either. -
Ok, looks like in future when birth rates in Singapore becomes intolerable by the gov., they will implment yet another strong arm policy such as; those who are married and have no children will need to contribute MORE in CPF...
I won't be surprised at all....
-
About 220 of us in our estate had opted our and carried with the card (like an I.C) in our wallet,we feel very safe now cauz no one would rob our organs w/o our consent when we r dieing.
Had all these PAP's dogs here opted out oreli??? -
Hi ghostmayhem
I think many people do realise that HOTA has its merits. However, the recent case is really a very bad example of how they execute it. The thing is, for such sensitive issues, it only takes one bad example to spoil the whole image, becoz this is our lives we're talking about, and when we place our lives or our loved ones' lives in their hands at the crucial moments, we don't expect them to be so unsympathetic and even use the police to forcefully remove the patient from his family! Don't you realise this is like a big bully?
And the family has no say in it, not even to consult a third opinion, or to move the patient to another hospital? This is what made me feel uneasy - how they handled the situation.
This is the family's side of the story:
http://matrixisland.blogspot.com/2007/02/true-colour-of-matrix-masters.htmlActually right, if you all go read up more about HOTA, you will realize that the medical team working for the organ transplant is completely seperate from the doctors and nurses that are trying to save you.
I know what they "said". Does it really make you feel better?IF you really fall into a COMA, you will be kept alive. a COMA does not equal brain dead.However, only when you REALLY BRAIN DEAD, and the doctors cannot earn any more $$$ out of trying to save you because there is NO WAY TO SAVE A BRAIN DEAD PERSON,
For the record, a patient in coma or vegetative state is not considered brain dead. So what exactly is brain dead? Doctors all over the world cannot agree on that, much less what steps to check for brain-dead. (Yes, i know about SG hospital's steps, but that's only how locals do it).
Like i said, due to the sensitivities of the issue, one or two bad examples will cause the whole idea to look very bad.
Link: Potential organ donor was wrongly declared brain-dead
Also check out Tanya Liu's "brain-dead" story - she was declared brain-dead by UK doctors and revived months later in Beijing.secondly, to clarify about Muslims and why they arent included in HOTA
You mentioned that you are still a student currently in JC. Do you still recite the SG pledge every school day? It's been very long since i recited that pledge but i still remember what it tries to say. Let's take a moment to ponder over the words of the national pledge.
Muslims are not included inside because of religious reasons. the islamic religion requires their bodies to be complete when they are dead.
This is exactly what hota is about. to make organ donation a much fairer procedure.
How do you know it is fair? Do you just believe it becoz they say so? There is no transparency at all. What are the criteria for the priority? How is the organ transplant priority organised? Any independent third party org to check on it?
As for the opt-in or opt-out system, i think there are many discussions about it already. It is obvious that the country chose to take the easy way out, there's not enough public awareness of it - many people do not even know they are opt-in by default or how many of their organs are subjected to this act. By the default opt-in system, are they hoping that the people do not take the extra effort needed to opt-out? What does it say about the mentality?*btw did you know that statiscally,
skewed logic...
you have a much higher chance of receiving an organ due to organ failure, than actually dying in an appropriate manner so that your organs are harvested for HOTA? =) *
well bottom line is - if you trust them good for you. if not, juz take the extra step to opt-out. -
The family's intervention in this incident had resulted in a significant delay, which meant that some organs were no longer suitable for transplantation. It meant that a few patients were denied the chance of a transplant and indirectly the family had killed these other patients.Originally posted by sgquitter:And the family has no say in it, not even to consult a third opinion, or to move the patient to another hospital? This is what made me feel uneasy - how they handled the situation.
The implementation of HOTA follows strict procedure and the criteria for determining brain death are watertight. By not opting out, the donor has implied consent under HOTA and family should not be allowed to interfere with that decision, anymore than they can change his will. -
You are the one who is confused. For organ donation purpose, brain death refers to brain stem death, the complete and irreversible cessation of all brain stem functions. The criteria for determining brain death include at least 7 clinical tests for various aspects of brainstem function and that has stood the test of time in the medical literature. If a patient satisfies those clinical criteria, there is no chance of recovery because the brainstem is dead and the heart will stop soon after life support measures are discontinued. Local doctors follow the best practice as performed by all reputable hospitals worldwide.Originally posted by sgquitter:For the record, a patient in coma or vegetative state is not considered brain dead. So what exactly is brain dead? Doctors all over the world cannot agree on that, much less what steps to check for brain-dead. (Yes, i know about SG hospital's steps, but that's only how locals do it).
Of course the media loves a story about cases where the doctors made a mistake when they fail to apply the criteria properly. The most common situation is when a comatosed patient (after road traffic accident etc), is placed under sedation. The criteria for determining brain death requires that anaesthesia must be stopped and a blood test done to confirm that it has fallen below therapeutic levels before the clinical tests for brain death can be applied. If the doctors fail to recognize that sedation can mimic signs of brain death and the need to remove barbiturates and other sedating agents, they can make a mistake in rare situations. However, the media would blow up the rare mistakes into a everyday occurrence. The fault in those instances is with the doctors who apply the criteria, not the criteria themselves. -
If you opt out, its fine by everybody. Its not like they are harvesting your organs and selling it for a profit. Its just another person that suffers.
However, if there is only one organ available between one who has opt-out of HOTA and another who has stayed with HOTA, who do you think ought to get the organ? Personally I think it ought to be the one who has stayed with HOTA. You can't expect to just take and not give.
Its like saying if I die, I don't wanna give my organs to others even if they need it, but if others die I want to take their organs if I need them.
The only think I am concerned about is when they justify you "dead" enough to extract your organs. Its still very ambiguous and the "brain-dead" stage leaves me a little queasy. Can't it be done immediately after the person's heart has stopped? -
Originally posted by jianfish9:
Oh! That means, if I reverse my Opt Out to Opt In, I will receive an organ (should I need one) FREE? I've asked this question before; "Is the transplant FREE or CHARGEABLE?" Further extending this question; WHO is making money from the procedure of TRANPLANTATION since organ is donated and thus, FREE - or is it not?
If you opt out, its fine by everybody. Its [b]not like they are harvesting your organs and selling it for a profit. Its just another person that suffers.
However, if there is only one organ available between one who has opt-out of HOTA and another who has stayed with HOTA, who do you think ought to get the organ? Personally I think it ought to be the one who has stayed with HOTA. You can't expect to just take and not give.
Its like saying if I die, I don't wanna give my organs to others even if they need it, but if others die I want to take their organs if I need them.
The only think I am concerned about is when they justify you "dead" enough to extract your organs. Its still very ambiguous and the "brain-dead" stage leaves me a little queasy. Can't it be done immediately after the person's heart has stopped?[/b]
I understand the function and life-saving purpose of the HOTA, but shouldn't there be another set of 'options' for those who opted out instead of Official Damnation? Where's the word "Equality" or "Justice" in our National Pledge, to say nothing of Human Rights??? -
If i have not enough money to provide myself a surgery even though there is a organ for me, will the state sponsor it for me?
If the organs only reaches the rich, what about the poor?
Would the poor people benefit as well?
What happens if this system only benefits those who could afford a transplant and the follow up treatments. It will become those rich people people are the 'demand', those poor people will become the 'supply'.
Shall we look at the bigger picture instead of looking at the smaller picture like 'the state shouldn't have the right to take my organs even without my family's consent'. -
YES, this is what I am getting at indirectly.Originally posted by y33bas:If i have not enough money to provide myself a surgery even though there is a organ for me, will the state sponsor it for me?
If the organs only reaches the rich, what about the poor?
Would the poor people benefit as well?
What happens if this system only benefits those who could afford a transplant and the follow up treatments. It will become those rich people people are the 'demand', those poor people will become the 'supply'.
Shall we look at the bigger picture instead of looking at the smaller picture like 'the state shouldn't have the right to take my organs even without my family's consent'.
So far, let me ask, has anyone gotten any behind the scene details from someone who has received an organ from a donor? Such as the financial aspect of receiving a 'donated' organ?
I think it still boils down to money; even if you are an Opt In-ee, if you lack the funds, you might likely be placed or shoved back amongst the Opt Out-ees...
So, is HOTA just a one-sided diamond of an IDEA / SOLUTION?? -
The family's intervention in this incident had resulted in a significant delay, which meant that some organs were no longer suitable for transplantation. It meant that a few patients were denied the chance of a transplant and indirectly the family had killed these other patients.
Are you ACCUSING THE FAMILY OF KILLING those other patients? What kind of skewed logic is that? By your logic, you are indirectly killing thousands of people by depriving them of food! Are you in a clear state of mind?! Whoever needs those organs are lucky to get them, nobody else (definitely not Mr Sim or his family) caused their own organs to fail, please get that right! What kind of mentality you have? Please be more considerate of what you are saying.
IMHO, the family, now being the legal guardian of the unconcious patient, should have EVERY RIGHT to decide if they want to move the patient to another hospital, to get second opinion on his condition. They were denied the right. They were also denied the right to hold on to him for one more day. Granted, the organs might no longer be useful after some time, but who decides how long the wait can be? There are well-documented brain-dead patients who continues to live on for over 200 days!
Mr Sim slipped into coma on Saturday, declared brain-dead on Monday 6:20pm and the hospital staff agreed to perform the organ transplant surgery on Tuesday 10pm (6-Feb-2007). The family tried to request to delay it until Wednesday 8pm, but request was denied. However, by Tuesday 1am midnight, the hospital staff begin moving the patient for the organ transplant operation, which is when the whole ruckus started. So according to the timing given, it was not even 7 or 8 hours after being declared "brain-dead".You are the one who is confused. For organ donation purpose, brain death refers to brain stem death, the complete and irreversible cessation of all brain stem functions. The criteria for determining brain death include at least 7 clinical tests for various aspects of brainstem function and that has stood the test of time in the medical literature. If a patient satisfies those clinical criteria, there is no chance of recovery because the brainstem is dead and the heart will stop soon after life support measures are discontinued. Local doctors follow the best practice as performed by all reputable hospitals worldwide.
Hahahha... "For organ donation purpose" huh? Couldn't have said it better myself. Don't let the cat out of the bag lah~~ xD That's right! The whole deal is exactly because of the move for organ donation, that is why the definition for "brain-death" suddenly became necessary. Prior to organ transplant, there was no such thing as "brain-death".
So you're not confused? Why not you try to make UK and US doctors come to an agreement about "brain-death"? UK doctors say brainstem death is death, but US doctors can prove otherwise.
"There have been cases of patients with brainstem lesions who were able to be briefly restored to consciousness by electrical stimulation of the brain immediately above the lesion. If these patients could regain consciousness then a posteriori they were not dead, despite their dysfunctional brain stems! Brainstem death may inhibit higher brain activity, but the inhibition of activity is very different from the destruction of the vehicle of a capacity."
A person declared brain-dead can still have electrical activity in his brain. When the supposedly brain-dead patient is cut-up for his organs, some of them react strongly to the incision, heart beat increased rapidly and blood pressure rose until anaesthetic was given. If a person is truely dead, there should be no responses at all.
check out this post by a medically-trained (local?):
http://forums.hardwarezone.com/showpost.php?p=22923616&postcount=85
"Withstood the test of time"? How long ago was it again?
"no chance of recovery" doesn't remove a person's right to live on. amputated people have no chance of recovery, but you don't take away their lives. Dying is not the same as DEAD.
"heart will stop soon after life support measures are discontinued"
this is the most BS nonsense they want you to believe. of coz if a patient is dependent on a ventilator and the equipment is removed, he will die, not only supposedly "brain-dead" patients but many other patients as well. should people be dis-allowed pace-makers? As for the duration of time the body can be kept alive is much longer than you suspected - pregnant women who were "brain-dead" were known to live for over 200 days, kept alive until they delivered their babies.
If a machine keeps a man alive, he is not artificially alive: he is simply alive. A ventilator can only assist a body which is still living. This is as true of those diagnosed brain-dead as anybody else on a ventilator.Of course the media loves a story about cases where the doctors made a mistake when they fail to apply the criteria properly. .... Of course the media loves a story about cases where the doctors made a mistake when they fail to apply the criteria properly.
Well, is it a surprise that the media loves that kind of stories? Why do you think the public is interested to know? You said it: doctors can make mistakes, and there are many cases of that. The incidents i have highlighted are just the most recent cases, and they are supposed to have "double-checked" but still we see the co rk-ups. How is that possible?
If it was possible in UK & US, what makes you so confident SG is better? -
Originally posted by ShutterBug:Oh! That means, if I reverse my Opt Out to Opt In, I will receive an organ (should I need one) FREE? I've asked this question before; "Is the transplant FREE or CHARGEABLE?" Further extending this question; WHO is making money from the procedure of TRANPLANTATION since organ is donated and thus, FREE - or is it not?
I understand the function and life-saving purpose of the HOTA, but shouldn't there be another set of 'options' for those who opted out instead of Official Damnation? Where's the word "Equality" or "Justice" in our National Pledge, to say nothing of Human Rights???
What are you ranting about?
You have been ranting about what you do not know.
You have a very shallow understanding of HOTA.
The organ is free.
The transplant surgery, ward charges, follow up treatment, medication and other services are chageable. This I am sure every recipient is happy to pay, if they can pay, if they can't, then the hospital/government will help.
Profiteering from organ transplant in Singapore exist only in your yokel mind.
Now priority.
Priority goes to those who tissues most closely match that of the recipient.
Compatibility is most important, as tissue rejection is a very real danger in transplants
Also which organ that are needed also factor in.
If you are the only one who need a heart, and you are compatible. You get your transplant, ahead of all those who are waiting for a kidney or cornea.
Other consideration are the state of health of the recipient, age etc.
If you opt out, you are not banned from receiving an organ.
You lose out to those who have not opt out.
Between two suitable recipient, where one is in the HOTA scheme, and the other opted out. Who do you think the transplant team should call?
However, if there is only one suitable recipient, like in cases of rare tissue types, the organ will not be wasted, that one recipient, even if he has opted out will be called.
You have the right to opt out. -
It's not so much the opt-in, opt-out issue that's contentious - it's just plain ludicrous to think anything that involves such a fundamental human right (and a very sensitive subject matter) could be asserted without your consent beforehand.Originally posted by jianfish9:If you opt out, its fine by everybody. Its not like they are harvesting your organs and selling it for a profit. Its just another person that suffers.
However, if there is only one organ available between one who has opt-out of HOTA and another who has stayed with HOTA, who do you think ought to get the organ? Personally I think it ought to be the one who has stayed with HOTA. You can't expect to just take and not give.
Its like saying if I die, I don't wanna give my organs to others even if they need it, but if others die I want to take their organs if I need them.
The only think I am concerned about is when they justify you "dead" enough to extract your organs. Its still very ambiguous and the "brain-dead" stage leaves me a little queasy. Can't it be done immediately after the person's heart has stopped?
Taking this argument further, would it be alright for SingTel or The Economist to opt you into their subscription plans on a de-facto basis without your consent, only for you to be informed you could actually opt out after your subscription starts? -
I must say that your analogy is very warped.Originally posted by walesa:It's not so much the opt-in, opt-out issue that's contentious - it's just plain ludicrous to think anything that involves such a fundamental human right (and a very sensitive subject matter) could be asserted without your consent beforehand.
Taking this argument further, would it be alright for SingTel or The Economist to opt you into their subscription plans on a de-facto basis without your consent, only for you to be informed you could actually opt out after your subscription starts?
In fact, I do agree to a certain degree that it ought to be an opt-in plan. I was pretty angry when I heard that I had to opt-out. I was thinking "Where are my human rights???" Why must the government decide everything for me? To tell me to go fish myself when I need help but then to decide for me when they need my "help".
On hindsight, how many people would have bothered to go down and opt themselves in. Less than 10% perhaps? Most people would not even know it existed. Even now with a opt-out plan, many are still plain clueless. This plan, we hope, is for the good of the rest of the public.
Maybe when you are on the receiving end of the organ, you might be grateful that it is a opt-out plan then.
Still, I believe that many people are unhappy with the carrot and stick approach. That one who opt-out of the plan will be placed at the bottom of the list to receive any organ. Its like sort of forcing you to stay in the plan or seem like some sort of "punishment."
After all, we are all afraid that there will be no organ available if we ever need a transplant ourselves. But if there is no one giving, who can receive? -
Why is it warped? Are you telling me it's warped that you aren't subscribed to SingTel or The Economist without your consent? What business is it of the government's to begin with on whether I should/want to donate my organs? Afterall, the UK - and just about every civilised society which accords the most fundamental respect for one's choice on such matters - and many other nations operate on an opt-in basis. It is indeed warped that "de-facto" opt in schemes can even take root prior to gaining the donor's approval. The point here is, why should you even be compelled to donate by default unless you voice out? If a charitable organisation ran out of funds, could you then be obliged to donate to them (however worthy they may be) without your approval? Do you even find such an idea reasonable?Originally posted by jianfish9:I must say that your analogy is very warped.
In fact, I do agree to a certain degree that it ought to be an opt-in plan. I was pretty angry when I heard that I had to opt-out. I was thinking "Where are my human rights???" Why must the government decide everything for me? To tell me to go fish myself when I need help but then to decide for me when they need my "help".
On hindsight, how many people would have bothered to go down and opt themselves in. Less than 10% perhaps? Most people would not even know it existed. Even now with a opt-out plan, many are still plain clueless. This plan, we hope, is for the good of the rest of the public.
Maybe when you are on the receiving end of the organ, you might be grateful that it is a opt-out plan then.
Still, I believe that many people are unhappy with the carrot and stick approach. That one who opt-out of the plan will be placed at the bottom of the list to receive any organ. Its like sort of forcing you to stay in the plan or seem like some sort of "punishment."
After all, we are all afraid that there will be no organ available if we ever need a transplant ourselves. But if there is no one giving, who can receive?
It's totally senseless to suggest I "should be grateful" if I'm on the receiving end of an organ transplant. There're always two sides to any coin and in any given circumstances, you'd always have some people profitting, however marginalised the majority may be. I'm sure convicted murderers too would be grateful if the death penalty were omitted from the Penal Code, but does that necessarily mean it'd serve the interests of others better? Looking at it from a neutral perspective where I neither donate nor receive, I certainly wouldn't concur with you that a decision could be made on my behalf before my approval is obtained. -
Basically what's wrong here is that our Multimillion Dollar Government, grossly lack People Skills... everything they do or implement, they conveniently use threat of some kind....Originally posted by jianfish9:I must say that your analogy is very warped.
In fact, I do agree to a certain degree that it ought to be an opt-in plan. I was pretty angry when I heard that I had to opt-out. I was thinking "Where are my human rights???" Why must the government decide everything for me? To tell me to go fish myself when I need help but then to decide for me when they need my "help".
On hindsight, how many people would have bothered to go down and opt themselves in. Less than 10% perhaps? Most people would not even know it existed. Even now with a opt-out plan, many are still plain clueless. This plan, we hope, is for the good of the rest of the public.
Maybe when you are on the receiving end of the organ, you might be grateful that it is a opt-out plan then.
Still, I believe that many people are unhappy with the carrot and stick approach. That one who opt-out of the plan will be placed at the bottom of the list to receive any organ. Its like sort of forcing you to stay in the plan or seem like some sort of "punishment."
After all, we are all afraid that there will be no organ available if we ever need a transplant ourselves. But if there is no one giving, who can receive? -
ask any ah lao, they will tell you that the biggest mafia in town is the MIW.Originally posted by ShutterBug:Basically what's wrong here is that our Multimillion Dollar Government, grossly lack People Skills... everything they do or implement, they conveniently use threat of some kind....