All your livers belong to us!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aclS1pGHp8o

You think this is far fetched? Think again.

Quote:

---

A system of presumed consent will take effect on 1 December, where people will have to opt-out if they do not want their organs used after death.

Living donors who lack the mental capacity to express a view could also be deemed to consent to donation by experts acting in their best interests.

Health Minister Mark Drakeford said the "fundamental change" gave hope to over 200 people in Wales needing new organs.

---

Quote:

---

Under the new law, people are invited to register their wish to donate their organs or not, with the assumption that they consent to donation if they do not register a view.

---

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-34443339

Mengele would be proud.

What, no Repo! The Genetic Opera clips?

OH MY GOD!!! Doing more transplants to people!!?!?!

Can't we just leave them to die??!!!!

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

OH MY GOD!!! Doing more transplants to people!!?!?!

Can't we just leave them to die??!!!!

~:smoking:

---

Well my liver belongs to me, not the state!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

OH MY GOD!!! Doing more transplants to people!!?!?!

Can't we just leave them to die??!!!!

~:smoking:

---

Would you like to explain to us how harvesting the organs of the mentally handicapped while they're alive is ok?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Would you like to explain to us how harvesting the organs of the mentally handicapped while they're alive is ok?

---

:laugh4:

Honestly. What kind of discussion can you possibly be trying to develop with that statement?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Well my liver belongs to me, not the state!

---

The loss aversion of old age/right wingers encapsulated!

Honestly, I don't see the problem.

The slippery slope is slippery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

The slippery slope is slippery.

---

This is a non-argument - almost everything we do could be claimed to be on a slippery slope: driving fast means people are more likely to die. Yet we don't state that we should not drive any cars to be safe.

Idaho, are all left wingers signed up to have their organs removed for the Greater Good?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Would you like to explain to us how harvesting the organs of the mentally handicapped while they're alive is ok?

---

...are we reading the same article? All donations are stated to be only post-Morten.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Would you like to explain to us how harvesting the organs of the mentally handicapped while they're alive is ok?

---

Corrections:
1) it is not the mentally handicapped. It is not mentally capable, there is a very big difference. Think vegetative-state.
2) it is based on preferences ie:living-will in consultation with friends and family and a range professions including an independent assigned by the state to 'act in the persons behalf' which most often or not, always take the 'safe approach' thus will rule to opt-out.
3) This is based on when the client is dead, not when they are alive.

Anyway, long story short, we have a big organ crisis and you don't need them when dead. You can chose to opt out and most people don't actually mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Well my liver belongs to me, not the state!

---

Take steps to make them disregard YOUR liver.

Why assuming that the deseased would like to have his organs donated is more immoral than assuming that he wouldn't.
In my opinion, it's the same thing, but the former has the extra advantage of actually allowing some people to live a bit more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crandar

Why assuming that the deseased would like to have his organs donated is more immoral than assuming that he wouldn't.

---

Assuming he would (and having a law to prove that) may cause some people to "produce" the deceased rather than to wait for one with suitable organs to die.

There's no monetary incentive to do so beyond the already present black market. Besides that, unless they were on the top of the donor list anyone in need who tried that would have to kill a mountain of people to get a victim's organs put in them by a legal establishment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Assuming he would (and having a law to prove that) may cause some people to "produce" the deceased rather than to wait for one with suitable organs to die.

---

I really doubt that, Girlandir, because murdering someone and making sure that the doctors have access to his organs fast enough doesn't look very practical, because thanks to the law there wouldn't be such a worrying lack of available organs, because by your logic, there is currently the possibility that a few desperate patients will start murdering donators and because the authorities would not be very willing to reward the the murderous patient with his victim's organs.

My assumption refers to rich people who are in need of a transplantation and can afford to hire a person who will cause a prospective donor to die as if naturally. Something like that worked with rich childless couples (most of them foreigners) who struck a deal with doctors and bought a baby while his mother was announced that the baby had died in labor.

Although it happened in Ukraine, perhaps it is not so easy to do in Europe.

You do know that sort of thing happens anyway, without this new law?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

My assumption refers to rich people who are in need of a transplantation and can afford to hire a person who will cause a prospective donor to die as if naturally.

---

Or alternatively, the rich patients are already paying some kidnappers to find them the necessary organs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

You do know that sort of thing happens anyway, without this new law?

---

But now it's closer to being legal.

...No its not. Murder is no closer to being legalized.

They are going to take the livers of the rich while they are still alive and give them to the poor!

It's typical Mengele-style class-warfare, I agree, says so right in the text if you can't read!!!!!!!11111

Or maybe it's infringing of the human rights of the dead in order to keep other undeserving bastards like little children or so alive, I can't decide what makes me more angry!!!!1111

I'm also furious that my money won't stay in my bank account after I die, what if I ever need it again?????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Take steps to make them disregard YOUR liver.

---

This. Nobody is going to want my liver when I'm through with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

:laugh4:

Honestly. What kind of discussion can you possibly be trying to develop with that statement?

---

"Living donors who lack the mental capacity to express a view could also be deemed to consent to donation by experts acting in their best interests."

You see no problem with this?

Not unless unless there's a clause i didnt see saying the state will start pulling the plugs on the comatose or something. Seriously, it's an opt out donor program, not a real life Repomen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Not unless unless there's a clause i didnt see saying the state will start pulling the plugs on the comatose or something. Seriously, it's an opt out donor program, not a real life Repomen.

---

That's exactly what the quote says - it boils down to this - someone who is not compus mentus can be made to give their organs to someone else.

So, for example, a retarded child could be made to donate a Kidney to their parent - or a comatose patient might donate part of their liver.

Maybe the BBC is exaggerating, or just wrong, but the implication is very clear.

We should never create a law which relies on the goodwill of society to prevent abuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

So, for example, a retarded child could be made to donate a Kidney to their parent - or a comatose patient might donate part of their liver.

---

It doesn't mean this at all. As I posted in the above:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Corrections:
1) it is not the mentally handicapped. It is not mentally capable, there is a very big difference. Think vegetative-state and discussing end of life.
2) it is based on preferences ie:living-will in consultation with friends and family and a range professions including an independent assigned by the state to 'act in the persons behalf' which most often or not, always take the 'safe approach' thus will rule to opt-out.
3) This is based on when the client is dead, not when they are alive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

That's exactly what the quote says - it boils down to this - someone who is not compus mentus can be made to give their organs to someone else.

So, for example, a retarded child could be made to donate a Kidney to their parent - or a comatose patient might donate part of their liver.

---

After death. It says it right in the first paragraph, they aren't going to euthanise the incapable for organs.

We already recycle used paper, used glass, used cellphones, so why not used humans?

It's your soul that goes to heaven, not your body, you get a new one there.

So if the parts are not used to help other humans they will be eaten by flames or by critters, how especially the latter makes anyone feel more comfortable is beyond me.