Organ donation

This sounds very arrogant and I don't see how it can be legal really. We had the same on Network sites where they were "assuming" that any person visiting the site was agreeing to cookies and personal information gathering without giving them the option to tick a box to disagree. The onus should be on the organisation wanting to use the organs of a deceased to ask for permission not the onus on the family, especially as there is a good chance the organs will already have been removed due to the excuse and/or that they didn't find a card and that time is of a premium. The only people to have legal claim on a person who has died, in whatever circumstances should be the family. This is again the thin edge of the wedge and should be resisted.

 

Sounds a good idea to me, what use are your organs once you're dead?

 

Is that the point of the discussion though, JWK The real question is does someone or some organisation have the right to lay claim on something that is not legally theirs just by saying if you don't have such and such we can assume we have the right to use it. Would you let someone take your wife's purse from her because they decided that since you didn't have a card that said that they couldn't they could do so without your permission???
Take the principle a little further on, say, an outside organisation laying claim on people such as passing a condition that when a person gets to the age of 60 they should leave their home so that an organisation can take possession of it for their own use just because they didn't carry a card around saying it was their home.
Organs, possessions, house, they are immaterial, the problem is principal and the ability of an organisation being able to transfers the rights of a family to themselves without real legal standing and take possession of something without the permission of the family. Where does it end???

 

Not quite the same thing Armandii, once you are dead your organs are just going to rot away or be burnt anyway, why not let other people who are in desperate need benefit

 

Sorry, but it is the same, JWK. It doesn't matter what the item is, it's the principle of someone or some organisation that they can claim the rights to something they don't have legal rights to. Justifying the use is not the point. I, personally, don't want my cadaver invaded and organs removed. Some people wouldn't want it for ethical or religious reasons and the natural assumption should be that permission must be asked for first. Whether organs should be used, with consent, when a
person dies is another discussion, but the sidetracking of a families beliefs or wants by a shrugging of shoulders and saying "We.....eeell, they weren't carrying a card so we assumed it was okay. Can you imagine the acute distress that would cause to a family who hadn't wanted it to happen......or is it "organs at any price?"

 

Where's *dim* when we need him!

The 'conspiracists' would argue that it creates a danger to life. If you have had a serious accident and in a life threatening condition, they say that there is a danger of the medics deciding not to work too hard to save you because they are short of body parts for donation!

 

I wouldn't believe that for a moment, Shiney . But giving the "edge/advantage" to those donor organisations by throwing the onus on everyone to carry a card saying they don't want to be a donor is a devious way of trying to harvest more organs against the wishes of a person or their families. No State should be able to say that when a person dies the State has "first rights" to that person's body.