The title says it all: Should organ donation and blood donation be compulsory?

My stance will have to be a yes. To sum it up, I don't need my organs when I die anyhow, and as for blood donation, it's mostly harmless unless you're ill or something (in which case you can't give blood).

"Pros"
On organ donation:
More patients will be saved. In the USA alone, even now, 84 000 people await fresh organs - a lot of them will get them if organ donation is made compulsory. Indeed, organ donation can save a lot of lives.

Also, in many cases, autopsy involves opening up your corpse physically, which means that even if you do not donate your organs, your body will still be operated on after your death.

On blood donation:
Donating blood is relatively risk-free and helps save lives even if you only donate blood a single time. If you are healthy, it does not hurt you (see "What to expect" and "eligibility standars" below).

On both:
An "opt-out" system would prevent people who are strongly against the idea from being forced to give blood or organs.

"Cons"
In a free state, you should have the right to decide what happens to your body.

Religious reasons are not listed here as I do not feel they are too relevant.

References:
Red Cross
Red Cross main page (www.redcross.org)
Sub-pages within Red Cross:
RedCross Blood Donation eligibility fact page (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#infec)
Red Cross site search results: "Organ donation" (http://www.redcross.org/search/search.asp)
[Recommended]What to expect when donating blood (http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_553_00.html)

More on organ donation
Official Organ Donation and Transplantation Web site of the US Department of
Health and Human Services. (http://www.organdonor.gov)
Rockell Times: Government launches compulsory organ donation programme (http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/2002/08/12/organ-donation.html)
I also recommend doing a Google search for both "Organ donation" and "Compulsory organ donation", in both English and in your home land's language.
Organ donation - the debate [PDF] (http://www.nursing-standard.co.uk/archives/ns/vol14-28/pdfs/p41-42_w28_s.pdf)

Dagobahn Eagle
Monitored debate: Arguments for and against will be summed up in this post for easy reference.

I know that they will make it look like nothing was removed, but if possible I would like to be buried whole.

I don't know why.

And on blood donation...

I might give once or twice. How much blood do they take out?


So... I'm on the opposing side. You should have a choice of what they do to your body.

Point 1: A person's body is their personal property. If you can will your earthly THINGS to whomever you choose after death, you sure as crap can do what you like with your own organs after death. It's a basic right, it's basic morality, and if I choose to be cremated whole, it's my choice and no guilt trip is applicable.

What if my organs went to a neo-nazi neo-conservative ultra-liberal satan worshipping scumbag? Why, I'd be spinning in my grave. :D

No, I and every other person has the right to decide what happens to his or her remains after death, within reason.

As for blood donation, the reason I don't give blood is that I don't trust the technicians' competence or personal hygiene. What if they gave me CJD? Or some horrible Hepatitic strain? ergh. Beggars belief.

Sorry, but the rest of humanity just doesn't matter to me as much as it does to some people. Humans are crap. If I were donating blood and organs to save blue whales or cute little puppydogs, I might consider it. But humans are- by and large- ignorant scum, and it's not worth the risk to my personal safety.

Blood donations should not be mandatory. For the most part, because the government has no right to tell you what to do with your body. And a fear of needles might be the other part...

As for organ donating, I honestly don't have a really big problem with taking useable organs from dead people. You're not going to need the organs when you're dead, and being dead, you'll no longer care. Maybe give the next of kin a fee for the organs or take out some cost of funeral arrangements or something. Then again, if they start making dead people look like zombies or something with missing parts... it might get kinda wierd.

I believe in "your body, your choice".

Me, I'm an organ donor. So mine will be donated when I die.

Originally posted by StarWarsPhreak
And a fear of needles might be the other part...



Amen! I have to get my blood checked every month while I'm on some stupid medication. Argh!

As for organ donating, I honestly don't have a really big problem with taking useable organs from dead people. You're not going to need the organs when you're dead, and being dead, you'll no longer care.

I know that I won't need them, and they'd basically rot.

So it's a throwup between my selfish idea of being buried whole (I mean, it doesn't feel right to me to go into your grave missing your kidney, liver, etc), or saving another human being. Just weird.

I might end up being a donor as I get older, and my liking for pushing up daisies whole fades away.


Squidward... he's.... he's pushing up daisies!

Oh, I thought he was dead.

couldn't resist :D

I'm an organ donor, because I believe in it, but I also believe in a persons right to make that choice.

As for blood donation, I'd love to give blood, but I have a paralyzing phobia of needles. I honestly can barely stand to SEE needles. Getting immunizations takes a LOT of preparation for me.

Amen! I have to get my blood checked every month while I'm on some stupid medication. Argh!
On my part it's more of a dislike of needles than a fear of needles. Dang, I hate blood samples:mad: .

I'd love to give blood, but I have a paralyzing phobia of needles. I honestly can barely stand to SEE needles. Getting immunizations takes a LOT of preparation for me.
Then it's probably not for you.

Can't they give immunization trough some other means?

I might give once or twice. How much blood do they take out?
Not much, considering you can apparently do it as often as every 57th day.

As far as making these compulsory goes, I don't really like it. It being strongly encouraged is a good idea though. I honestly don't see what the issue is with people not being able to donate their organs after they die. It seems irrational to me... I figure some people could use mine, and it would make me heartless for real. :D

I don't think blood donation should be compulsory, but they should encourage it.

I don't think organ donation should be "compulsory" but i do think it should be the default. Anyone who is against it (for religious reasons, personal reasons, or just cos they don't like the idea) should be able to opt out.

In the UK i think they give you an organ donor's card form with your driving licence or passport or something. This could work in a similar way. You would be assumed to be opted out until you reached 18 (unless your parents opted you in) but when you reached 18 you would be sent an opt-out form with some important item and if you didn't return it hten you would automatically change to opt-in.

One organ would probably be ok for me (haven't really given it much thought :) ), but when they start using my body as spare parts, that's where I would draw the line. :p :D

It's not really an organ per se, but I can see compulsory preservation of the umbilical cord of a person at birth for medical purposes. This is a source of stem cells and can be used to help the person later in life if they have spinal injuries. Certainly the technology exists to preserve the blood from this source and it could be invaluable.

The trouble is the media and general public associate "stem cells" with "fetal research" (ie: requires abortions to obtain the material) and so popular opposition to stell cell research could be an impediment to this.

Obviously not everyone should give blood, or donate their organs. People with diseases and such would be very poor candidates (unless it was just to study the effects of something).

Donating one's body to science is a personal choice. Should we respect a person's dying wishes?

Originally posted by Samuel Dravis
As far as making these compulsory goes, I don't really like it. It being strongly encouraged is a good idea though. I honestly don't see what the issue is with people not being able to donate their organs after they die. It seems irrational to me... I figure some people could use mine, and it would make me heartless for real. :D

That would be a perk for you, wouldn't it? But, at that point, you wouldn't be around to enjoy it. :p

As for organ donation being compulsory: I don't like that idea. It seems like someone should make that choice for themselves. Obviously people relate the heart to many areas of living and feeling, so the idea that someone else may receive this vital part of their entire life may make some uncomfortable. And understandably so.

Blood donation doesn't seem like as big of a deal. I mean, you do it while you're alive, and your body with rebuild whatever is taken away; you can do it as many times as you like with no huge risk, as long as you wait long enough in between. Plus it's saving lives. :)

I think that saving umbilical cord blood for future use is amazing. And, honestly I've never heard of using the actual cord for research, but it sounds very interesting....Some women donate their placentas for research. Also very cool IMO. :D

Bottom line: No, on compulsory organ donation.

Originally posted by Kurgan
Certainly the technology exists to preserve the blood from this source and it could be invaluable.

And it could just be hellishly expensive. It takes a lot of liquid nitrogen to keep stem cells cryo-frozen for - say - 74 years. Now, liquid N_2 isn't exactly expensive (infact it's cheaper by volume than milk AFAIK). But still. I for one do not believe that stem cell treatment will come around before stable cloning techniques - because I believe that cloning will be required to carry out a lot of stem cell research. And when you have stable cloning techniques, you can dispense with the cryo-freezing and make the cells on the spot.

Using them for research, on the other hand, seems like a good idea - as well as a good way to get around backwards objections to therapeutic cloning and stem cell research.

Originally posted by Lady Jedi
Bottom line: No, on compulsory organ donation.

Even if anyone could easily opt-out of it if they wished?

Even if anyone could easily opt-out of it if they wished?
That's not really compulsory. Even I forgot that when I made the thread title - if you have the option to freely say no, you're not really obliged by law anymore, and it's not compulsory (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=compulsory). so I'm in favour of this "opt-out" system, which means, probably that I can't say I'm for compulsory organ donation in its litteral form.

I read a Scandinavian Science Illustrated article on researchers growing organs in laboratories, but that almost certainly can't replace organ donation - without organ donation, they'll still come up short.

Originally posted by toms
Even if anyone could easily opt-out of it if they wished?

Yeah, still no, considering that 'compulsory' means required, as was stated above. Therefore if it is required, you wouldn't have an opt out choice. I think that you should have the choice whether to give up your organs or not.

Nevertheless, the discussion of whether the donation system should be an 'opt-in' or 'opt-out' is an interesting one. I am in favor of the 'opt-out' model, because it forces everyone to pay the subject some consideration.

You should be in by default, as many people don't sign up now that it's "opt-out by default". If you're in by default, I don't think the chances are as high that you'll opt out.

For another example, everyone born in Norway is an automatic member of the State church. Now, although the large majority of Norsemen are atheists, 80+% still belong to the State Church because they can't get around to sign out of it (it doesn't really make a difference anyway).

The deal is that I have a strong feeling that if you were not born a member of the State Church, the membership per centage would be much lower than >80%;) .

I never even considered you were meaning "compulsory" as mandatory, with no opt-out. I don't think you would ever find ANYONE who supported that.

But an opt-out system instead of the current opt-in system would seem to me to be just as good.

Most people, except those with specific strong religious beliefs, are in favour of organ donation... but many don't carry cards, or opt in, or tell their relatives.
When someone dies there is often a matter of minutes before a lot of the organs become non-viable... and often doctors have to spend this time trying to get permission from relatives and so on.

If you consider the number of people who die, compared tothe number that need organs... it would probably only need a small percentage of organs to be harvested, but that is more than they can often get now.

With an opt-out system doctors could check for an opt-out card/dogtags/on drivers license, or ask relatives if the person opted out. Maybe check a database of names.
And unless there was some evidence to the contrary they would have the option of removing organs, if any were needed.

I suppose "unidentified" bodies would have to be exxcempt, as they couldn't know for sure if they were opt-ed out or not. But the opportunities would still go up tenfold.

The only issue to consider is that some people might be happy to think of their organs going to another person to keep them alive, but less happy about their organs going to research or to train doctors.

Both of which are probably as vital to saving lives, but not as immediate or obvious in their benefits.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
You should be in by default, as many people don't sign up now that it's "opt-out by default". If you're in by default, I don't think the chances are as high that you'll opt out.

Precisely.

I suppose "unidentified" bodies would have to be exxcempt, as they couldn't know for sure if they were opt-ed out or not.

That problem seems relatively minor. AFAIK most unidentified bodies are not in a state where recovery of organs is possible.

I'm not entirely sure that even an opt-out system is moral. It's like saying:

"Unless you opt out of our state-inheritance scheme, all your belongings and money will go to the state when you die, not to your heirs."

Now granted, I'm not sure what my sons and daughters would do with my viscera on a platter after my death, and I don't really want to know. The point is, that if something BELONGS to you, I don't think the state has a right to decide what to do with it on your death. And many ill-informed people who wouldn't like their organs to be harvested would fail to opt-out under a system such as the one you're describing. Their ignorance is not an excuse for the state to nick their livers.

And once again I must point out, that human population growth is a serious problem, and the more lives we save and prolong through artificial means, the more we're contributing to the problem.

If all the effort and creativity that went into research on organ transplantation was directed instead into research on how to minimise our adverse effect on the ecology of this planet, we might have a better chance of surviving as a race.

As it is, in the vain attempt to achieve immortality for our friends and family, we've merely saved pennies and lost pounds.

Originally posted by Spider AL
Their ignorance is not an excuse for the state to nick their livers.

See, that's what seperates the right and left wings in Europe... :D

And once again I must point out, that human population growth is a serious problem, and the more lives we save and prolong through artificial means, the more we're contributing to the problem.

By way of organ donation? I somehow doubt it.

If all the effort and creativity that went into research on organ transplantation was directed instead into research on how to minimise our adverse effect on the ecology of this planet, we might have a better chance of surviving as a race.

Why not do both?

By way of organ donation? I somehow doubt it.You shouldn't. If organ donation saves lives, it also contributes to the population problem, no matter how slightly.

Why not do both?Researchers doing both at once would accomplish half as much, that's why.

Originally posted by Spider AL
You shouldn't. If organ donation saves lives, it also contributes to the population problem, no matter how slightly.


So you should cut every men's balls off so we don't reproduce.
And cut yours too.

\end

Originally posted by Spider AL
Researchers doing both at once would accomplish half as much, that's why.

The number of available researchers is hardly the limiting factor in the equation.

If one diverted - say - the part of the NASA budget that isn't being used for anything useful to furthering research on other subjects, you could improve the research in both the fields of sustainable development and reproductive health. And probably still have money to spare.

Or you might want to actually begin to tax multinational corporations such as McDonalds and Coca Cola...

So you should cut every men's balls off so we don't reproduce.
And cut yours too.How very vulgar. :) No, I for one am not led about by my "balls", so I don't need to cut them off. I can merely use contraception. So can you, so can everyone, male or female.

However, it's worth noting that I've always been in favour of organised sterilisation among couples that have already had reams and reams of children. I myself have no interest in having children, as there's no logical point to it, and it would definitely hamper my lifestyle. I prefer not to give in to my animal instincts where possible.

The number of available researchers is hardly the limiting factor in the equation.I disagree. Scientists spending their entire working lives finding new fillings for breast implants are a COMPLETE waste of resources and education. Compel them to study ecological sciences earlier in their careers, and do the world some good. That's my plan.

And yes, that goes for scientists working on organ transplantation too. :D

Or you might want to actually begin to tax multinational corporations such as McDonalds and Coca Cola...Hey, you know I'm always in favour of such measures. But still, that doesn't alter the fact that there are many medical and scientific "disciplines" that are simply counter-productive to our survival as a race. It's no use just downsizing them, because they'd still be wasteful, just smaller.

No, scrap them altogether.

Originally posted by Spider AL
I can merely use contraception. So can you, so can everyone, male or female.

Unless they are Catholic... (Sorry, me bad but it was just so tempting.)

However, it's worth noting that I've always been in favour of organised sterilisation among couples that have already had reams and reams of children.

An... interesting policy. One that opens up whole worlds of new and creative methods of oppression...

I disagree. Scientists spending their entire working lives finding new fillings for breast implants are a COMPLETE waste of resources and education.

It pays better than the universities :=) Seriously, though, there is no shortage of qualified, capable and talented people applying for Ph.d.s in the various fields related to sustainable development (or, for that matter, in any other field(s)). It is a matter of money, not manpower.

Compel them to study ecological sciences earlier in their careers, and do the world some good. That's my plan.

You cannot 'compel' people to do research in certain fields rather than other. There's no assembly line marked 'research' that you can simply staff with people who don't care a jiffy. Well, you could, but the result would hardly be satisfying compaired to the money invested in it.

What you can do is direct funding towards those who do the kind of research you want done.

However, the balance between necessary political priorities and unjustified infringement of academic freedom is a fine line indeed.

It is a time-honoured tradition of modern, Western culture that politicians do not interfere with the planning and execution of groundbreaking research on lower than Faculty level.

There are three main reasons for this:

a) The people doing the research are the people who know best what is media hype and what is potentially revolutionary (and since the former is far more common than the latter, politicians have a tendency towards wasting a lot of money when they micro-manage).

b) Academic freedom and independence ensures that a body of independent, knowledgeable people exist to cry foul when the politicians are trying to f*ck people over.

And

c) Politicians (and most other people outside the world of science) often do not appreciate the magnitude or importance of the spin-off effect.

interesting policy. One that opens up whole worlds of new and creative methods of oppression...I find this pathetic modern society based entirely upon ignorance and gullible consumerism to be oppressive. I find the fact that we're stripping the planet so that life for my generation will be that much more difficult, to be somewhat oppressive.

I do NOT find the act of sterilising people with eight children in an affluent western country where volume of children isn't necessary for genetic survival... to be oppressive. It is merely good, sound, sense. ;)

Seriously, though, there is no shortage of qualified, capable and talented people applying for Ph.d.s in the various fields related to sustainable developmentOnce again, I must re-iterate my point: It is not a matter of "shortage". Our global ecological problems are not being solved at a rate that is acceptable. Manpower spent on other useless fields and in many cases, directly competing fields, such as the medical fields that prolong life and add to population growth, is manpower wasted.

You cannot 'compel' people to do research in certain fields rather than other.Of course you can. Our society compels a-grade minds to become plastic surgeons. How? Because it pays better than other more altruistic and useful disciplines. Our society is geared to compel people to adopt useless, counter-productive existences. A complete societal change must be instituted if we are to survive... in a comfortable sense.

Of course it won't happen, but that's irrelevant to my point now, isn't it. ;)

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
And it could just be hellishly expensive. It takes a lot of liquid nitrogen to keep stem cells cryo-frozen for - say - 74 years. Now, liquid N_2 isn't exactly expensive (infact it's cheaper by volume than milk AFAIK). But still. I for one do not believe that stem cell treatment will come around before stable cloning techniques - because I believe that cloning will be required to carry out a lot of stem cell research. And when you have stable cloning techniques, you can dispense with the cryo-freezing and make the cells on the spot.

Using them for research, on the other hand, seems like a good idea - as well as a good way to get around backwards objections to therapeutic cloning and stem cell research.

That is a good point, and the technique is rather new, so of course it's going to be expensive at first. However it may be a worthwhile investment, if it's going to save lives. It has a much greater chance of not being rejected than say, fetal stem cells, since it's from the exact person's blood at birth. It's not as if human cloning is going to be cheap either, and that is pretty controversial as well with the public and with leaders.

I just hope as an option it is pursued. I could see one day it being compulsary. Even if the person who had the umbilical cord died, it could be used to save family members (as it was in the case I watched on this documentary about it). There are other methods of stem cell harvesting that don't involve aborted fetuses, but this seems to be a ripe source for them.

I'm so lazy I dont care enough to become an organ donor. I say it is your body yor choice.

Originally posted by kipperthefrog
I'm so lazy I dont care enough to become an organ donor. I say it is your body yor choice.

That may be one of the more horrible things that I've ever heard somebody say...


You're too lazy to do something as simple as file to be an organ donor to SAVE PEOPLE'S LIVES? You don't even have to DO anything to save those lives, you'd just let them die so you don't have to fill out a piece of paper?


Un be FREAKIN leavable.

2 words:

HELL NO.

I'd die if I had to give blood. I pass out and hyperventilate (and when i wake i am immobilized for a good 2 minutes...) when merely giving a ****in blood test....a pint would or a blood transfusion would definetely kill me.

This is kinda where my republican side disappears XD


Why not just use cloned blood?

Originally posted by Kurgan
That is a good point, and the technique is rather new, so of course it's going to be expensive at first. However it may be a worthwhile investment, if it's going to save lives.

[...]

I just hope as an option it is pursued. I could see one day it being compulsary.

[...]

There are other methods of stem cell harvesting [...] but this seems to be a ripe source for them.

Kurgan makes an excellent point as he so often does.

-ST

Originally posted by InsaneSith
Me, I'm an organ donor. So mine will be donated when I die.
Thats my philosophy. ;)

Originally posted by Rogue15
Why not just use cloned blood?
Cloned blood? wtf are you talking about?? :eyeraise:. I belive thats not possible


In my opinion people who doesnt will to donate because, for example, -"What if my organs went to a neo-nazi neo-conservative ultra-liberal satan worshipping scumbag? Why, I'd be spinning in my grave." -or any other paranoid or stupid reason in my opinion is people who cannot think in the other people, the ones who really need their lives to be saved, they only think in theirself. I think it's awesome when if for any matter you die, make another person start living with you inside him/her. Also i hope that people who isnt a donator dont recive a donation, i know is radical, but donators should have priority to have a donation for them.

Originally posted by LightNinja
Cloned blood? wtf are you talking about?? :eyeraise:. I belive thats not possible

AFAIK, it actually is. Well, you're not actually cloning the blood itself, but you can extract bone marrow containing blood-generating stem cells. That, however will never be an economical solution - not to mention the fact that it is a far greater intrusion upon the host body than tapping the blood.

I like that idea...

except i can't remember if i'm a donor or not.... i'm pretty sure i filled in the form, but then again i'm really bad at any kind of form filling.

Still, my parents are trustworthy... they would do the right thing anyway...