Opt-out forms for organ 'robbery'

last SG · 2007-02-11T22:34:26+00:00

go read HOTA.. btw, this is an administrative asswipe in the hospital being an.. asswipe.. i know it's hard for people not to, but try not to politicise it?

stupidissmart SG

That is why I said I don't mind being a live donor with full risks explained to me.

Ah there is a way to prevent such things from happening - no test matching to be done unless one person is dead already. So there you go. Sometimes relatives are not even matches - likely matches are usually father or mother to children, or sibling to sibling.

I think test matching for some organs, like cornea or heart etc do not require much particularly difficult testing. Rolling Eyes (Probably the size and blood type may be sufficient). They just need the organ.

And by the way jumping - the impact will kill the person and becomes a coroner's case. Organs won't be taken out on time and with the force of the impact - most organs will be too damaged to be used.

I didn't use jumping. I say a blow of a hammer on the head in the hospital. The organs r not damaged and u can still be kept alife for some time. There r always other ways to die yet preserve the organs.

Not likely because it becomes a coronial inquest and all organs will end up being useless as they will all end up on the forensic pathologist's examination table.

Neh... kill yourself in front of witness, such as a blow to the head with a hammer do not require any coronial inquest because there is no suspicious of foul play and thus can donate the organs away.

fymk SG

The way I see it . My own reasons for refusing to be a cadaveric donor are my own suspicions about cases like the one in USA ,like many people out there who might refuse to be one for other reasons.

If you want to increase organ donation , the way to go is to educate people on donating their organs and how it will benefit another person. Tell them how it all works.

Encourage religious leaders of appropriate religions ( not those who object to it) to talk about it and assure that the followers of that religion know it as a good and right deed to do instead of thinking of whether they will go to heaven for violating their bodies.

Get people who received an organ to go out to the community and talk about how much great it did them to get a second lease at life.

Hold talks for polytechnic students, jc students and university students- basically those who are of the age to sign a consent form without a guardian. Bring forms out there for people to sign up on the spot.

That wouldn't hurt . Doctors will not be hesitating about removing organs . Families would know it was their loved one's wish . Win Win situation - surely it is not that hard?

stupidissmart SG

The way I see it . My own reasons for refusing to be a cadaveric donor is my own ,like many people out there who might refuse to be one for other reasons.

If you want to increase organ donation , the way to go is to educate people on donating their organs and how it will benefit another person. Tell them how it all works.

Encourage religious leaders of appropriate religions ( not those who object to it) to talk about it and assure that the followers of that religion know it as a good and right deed to do instead of thinking of whether they will go to heaven for violating their bodies.

Get people who received an organ to go out to the community and talk about how much great it did them to get a second lease at life.

Hold talks for polytechnic students, jc students and university students- basically those who are of the age to sign a consent form without a guardian. Bring forms out there for people to sign up on the spot.

That wouldn't hurt . Doctors will not be hesitating about removing organs . Families would know it was their loved one's wish . Win Win situation - surely it is not that hard?

To be frank with u, despite my strong stand to be a donor, if u ask me to go and find a form to fill up and submitting etc, i find myself particularly lazy and just drag days after days until i forgot about it. Tis used to be the old system, and there r much publicity on it but the response is still pretty bad. Doctors and organ needer just see useful organs turning into ash day by day.

U talk about JC student etc, why don't we work the reverse way and educate them and inform them to see if they wanna opt out or not. Rolling Eyes

Now the system here, to me, is an improvement. Tis is because most people actually don't feel strongly about the issue and whether they donate or not it they don't really care, especially when they r dead Razz

If u r religious, then surely your religion head will inform u guys more and u guys can opt out then. So it seems pretty okie

Looking at the pros and cons

If auto opt out: Organs wasted, lives lost
If auto opt in: The dead person relative is not happy. Lives saved.

Looking from tis view, I think we should set auto opt in :p

fymk SG

I have friends who wanted to be organ donors prior to the opt in policy - they had the orange card which screamed ORGAN DONOR. They took the effort to make their consent clear. Why can't you if you allegedly feel so strongly about donating your organs?

BUT just because you are conveniently opted in to be a donor makes it right for doctors to take organs from unwary people who might not be as knowledgeable as you ? This is BULLSHIT.

This is rings of how criminal system works in Singapore - a lack of knowledge is not an excuse. Well now you have some law abiding citizens with a lack of knowledge who might not be agreeable to the opt in component. So they are getting treated the same way as criminals - a lack of knowledge is not an excuse, let's remove your organs.

What a load of crap. To find out the criteria of how they pronounce a person dead and harvest their organs took me a while to look for it . It does not come with the damn form.

I am for organ donation with full consent of the person or their family. I am not for organ donation which is automatically placed on the onus that one did not opt out so therefore the parts of the deceased is taken apart like a piece of machinery cannibalised for another.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Originally posted by fymk:

I am arguing this on principle of having full consent with knowledge. Like I said I think organ donors [b] who gave full consent to their bodies being used are doing a good deed. Nothing against them.

I have an issue with bodies being automatically cannibalised for organs regardless of whether the family or deceased have the knowledge or not. It just stinks of SOYLENT GREEN except they feed humans with humans. [/b]

So we really have no argument then, I am also some aspects of the current policy. We don't see mandatory blood drives do we?

However some of your other posts have raised other concerns. It seems you are mixing up your distaste of the current policy with what saving lives is all about, with all your previous posts about it just being too bad for people with organ failure and what have you not. In fact many of your posts seem to me to be highly dismissive of an issue with has a lot of moral and humanitarian implications... which is prehaps highly contradictory to your own stance of principle of having choice in this affair.

If it is our right to all be selfish about this issue, then we really have no say in a greater power then us deciding to be selfish for their own needs and imposing such a policy and saying "too bad" for us.

What is your personal stance however, on being an post-mortem organ donor? In the same vein of argument, would we all choose not donate blood in protest if the government one day decides to choose the easy way out with keeping the blood bank in stock?

The current policy may be screwed up, however in working against it one must realize that they do not make another mistake in the opposite direction... we don't stop policing just because some policemen are corrupt, or pull out all our teeth because some are decayed.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

I don't mind opting in if they put a clause favoring my genetically matching relatives first , should they be as unfortunate as to be on the list . If not , forget it. I have suspicions and until they can assuage it with that clause , I ain't becoming a cadaveric donor.

Let's say, for the sake of an argument... that you have no relatives that require an organ anytime at all... would you still opt in or decide to screw it all because the current policy is inperfect?

fymk SG

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. 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.

stupidissmart SG

I am lazy, because it doesn't seems critical Rolling Eyes I just drag and drag and drag. Tat is wat the common people will do

About how do u proclaim people as dead etc, is pretty medical. I thought it is worldwide accepted..

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. 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.

Com'on, I put it tis way. I treat dead bodies as just bodies waiting to be burnt. It is useless. U say tat I view dead people as machines, but I am surprised u view rotting flesh as treasure. I value life, and tat is why I feel organs should be donated to preserve lives. Wat do u view life as ? Is it worth more than some ideals or some people unhappiness ? Rolling Eyes

U talk about people dying etc and how sad it is, but do u know u r killing people by asking organs to be burnt. U r making more familes grieve about their dead relatives. They could have lived and the world a happier place. But u dash hopes of the living but burning the dead. Wat is the diff between depriving people from living and sacrificing people for deities ? Rolling Eyes I don't wna tto be involved in religion here but it seems to me throwing away your organs like tat for religion is making their god seems evil.

As said, the benefit of the system is people lives r saved. The problem is the family is not happy. Wat seems to be more important ?

fymk SG

The Fatwa was issued by MUIS telling them it is alright to donate certain parts of their organs - how come muslims still get autoexemptions? Want it to be fair ? EVERYONE PLAY ON THE SAME GROUND since we all cannot be selfish regardless of what we believe in. Yes I am being sarcastic. So if it is such a great humanitarian effort so let's argue on a higher level now - how come one group gets exempt while the rest get opted in? Selfishness?

I have suspicions of cadaveric organ donations. I already pasted a link in the USA case where they removed the guy's organs without following procedures. How is anyone to say that it won't happen in Singapore? I have other reasons to an auto opt in policy.

Like I said , there are people who want to donate with full knowledge that they want to do some good even after their demise - well I think it is good of them . And as for your argument about protesting blood donations - come on , everytime the blood bank runs short , they appeal to the public . They have education drives to tell people about blood donation etc.

Why not the same for organ donations? Too cheapskate to educate the public on the procedures of harvesting an organ? So opt for the easy way in and auto opt everyone regardless of whether they are aware of it or not?

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Don't blame me, blame the very logic we assume our rights on.

Unfortunately if we embrace objective rights, we cannot avoid embracing objective truths.

As much as we might like to think that a lot the choices within our rights are neither wrong or right or worse or better, when one takes time to look at them we realize it's not the case. It seems that yes, we have the right to choose, but that choice has very objective implications as well, sometimes there IS a right and wrong answer.

I could up it this way: if I came across a person dying on the side of the road in need of help I have the full right to choose to help him or not. However it does not follow that both choices are not better then the other.

If we attempt to say that a certain thing that stems from our rights is completely subjective (especially if it comes to such an important issue like organ donation), we actually demolish the very validity of the right to choose that we begin with... for if we choose to believe our actions and choices have no consquences... then on what grounds do we make our actions and choices to begin with?

Sounds a bit confusing, but it follows simply that we cannot say that it's our right to choose and then follow through and say that neither choice is more or less right (especially in such issues) all things considered... we would be contradicting ourselves.

So yes, we have rights, but rights hardly mean an arbitary or ignorant use of choice. One can just be as mindless exercising his rights as a person who doefully follows the main line... in this case neither is truly in a better state then the other. It is a greater horror that we use our rights to inflict more pain and suffering simply because we could, and wanted to choose without weighting fully everything... at least the doeful follower is amoral in the sense he had no real control over his actions.

What I am saying quite clearly is that I do not want people to just toe the line... but thinking just because we have the right to choose hence it's alright for us to choose flippantly and avoid the rather difficult fact that we ought to make some choices and not others is another great evil as well... an evil we often pass off as good in the name of "freedom".

fymk SG

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.

Rotting flesh still nourish the plant life and support insect life which forms part of the eco system . More plants the merrier - climate warming is now coming and we need to counter it with plant life . How is that for an argument? It is as ridiculous as yours.

Like I said , I didn't kill them. The nature of the disease did.

So just because someone dies from a lack of organs , it is somebody's elses fault for not donating their organs ? What a load of crap. You might as well say people who are gluttons are responsible for world hunger.

Don't change the argument. It is about the right of knowledge to consent to one's body being used.

fymk SG

As far as I know about Bioethics which pertain to organ donation . It's a gray area . But to remove it without the explicit consent of a person or families who might have a different ideal due to their beliefs - well that is outrageous.

If anyone who truly wants to be a cadaveric donor - they make the effort to sign on like my friends who had the orange organ donor card prior to the automatic scheme.

If those who cannot be bothered to even sign on the simple piece of paper stating they will donate their organs and YET want the convenience of an auto opt in in the midst of calling objecting parties selfish , that is a whole lot of hypocritical crap.

At least I know , I bothered to be on the bone marrow donation list because I know it is hard to get matches and it is a live donorship in where I have the choice to go through a painful procedure to extract a marrow. I explicitly consented because they bothered to let me know how the whole procedure is like if I am a match ,and they have my name on record .

I don't know what is life after death like and I sure don't feel like risking any of my organs unless it is a family member whom I love and treasure. I also don't entertain the idea of an accidental removal which might cause my death . I have alot of suspicions. No one to reassure me except tell me that I am selfish . Hilarious.

So here I am thinking in terms of those who do not have much knowledge about such things like the auto opt in and they deserve the right to know what happens to their body after death. So they should relinquish their selfish rights just because the government and health authorities are too lazy to campaign for organ donations?

stupidissmart SG

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.

I do not know why does a mistake from the other side of the world = to doctors gonna kill u when u sign for donating organs here. I heard of stories of doctors killing patient or making major mistakes as well. So we don't see doctors ? I heard of cars accidents and people dead. So don't sit bus and cars ? I heard of people go out and strike by lightning. So don't go out ? Rolling Eyes

Rotting flesh still nourish the plant life and support insect life which forms part of the eco system . More plants the merrier - climate warming is now coming and we need to counter it with plant life . How is that for an argument? It is as ridiculous as yours.

Techincally u r wrong since your body is burn to ash. Rolling Eyes

Like I said , I didn't kill them. The nature of the disease did.

Nah, u just watch them die without lifting a finger. U r not a murderer but u r heartless Rolling Eyes

So just because someone dies from a lack of organs , it is somebody's elses fault for not donating their organs ? What a load of crap. You might as well say people who are gluttons are responsible for world hunger.

Don't change the argument. It is about the right of knowledge to consent to one's body being used.

If u ask me, I think it is selfish to burn your body rather than donating it... Rolling Eyes And u could have saved a life but u refuse and let people die.

About right of knowledge, I already say tat there is publicity. And as said before the benefit of the system is lives r safe. The problem is family member r not happy. Tat is an important argument tat u need to consider as well. U cannot throw away tis consideration

If u want I can out it in more elaborate form for u to consider it more seriously.

Wat is the potential problem of auto opt out ? People who want to donate their organs did not fill the form for opting in. The consequences for tis action is tat un necessary organs r lost and lives r indirectly lost because of tis.

Wat is the potential problem of auto opt in ? People who wanna opt out did not fill in the form for opting out. The consequences is tat the family members r not happy about the decision. But the organs donated gave another a chance to live and make their loves one happy. Obviously a life preserved bring much more happiness than an organ lost from the dead. So overall it still bring a positive effect to society.

U haveto consider from tis viewpoint as well Rolling Eyes

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

You are barking up the wrong tree, it seems that in your haste to point out what is currently wrong with the system, you miss out the rather obvious fact that I am agreeing with you on most of your points on what is wrong.

What I am not agreeing on however, is your rather flippant attitude towards opting out purely on matter of principle. Granted it is your right and you have your reasons- HOWEVER one is getting the impression that you have loaded your dice in this case to only roll one result.

If it is really such a grey area as you suggest, I seriously doubt you would be making some rather dubious value judgements in your recent posts.

So you have your suspisions... are you going to actually clarify them or just keep mentioning your distrust them and building your entire justifications on it? I do not apperciate people getting accidently (or deliberately) killed for their organs, but it seems that to me a lot of your posts are bordering on paranoia. Or are you just assuming and basing your position the worst without considering the median reality of the issue?

Given your fixation on SOLVENT GREEN, it seems your impression of our doctors is that they are under some directive to speed the death of people to harvest their organs. I wonder if this is an proper picture of things.

Industry laxness and human error has contributed to the air crashes of otherwise totally airworthy airframes, but I wonder if we ought to get all reved up about distrusting the airline industry because of that.

What I have also failed to see you adequately adress is the impact of your personal choice on people who suffer from organ failure... in fact you don't really go very far beyond saying "it's just too bad."

True, but I must ask, if it's all too bad... what's stopping the government from considering one day "it's just too bad" if you are seccular and have no officially reconized belief systems from becoming mandantory organ donors?

Thus I find your position contradictory. On one had you appear to be fighting for the humanitarian cause for the intergity of the body but on the other hand are showing a rather inhuman and lopsided, not to mention often dismissive view (i could easily post many statements you have made to proved this) of those to whom organ failure is a very real reality.

In one respect you argue for the human right to choice and control over their own bodies... however it seems you are missing out the very large human aspect of compassion and helping our less fortunate.

If you were truly naturalistic as your "nature takes away" pitch seems to suggest, one would have tp believe in the survival of the fittest/strongest. Since the government is the strongest entity here... what right do we have to begin with? We can resist but there's really no rational reason to get outraged because we all know that choice is an illusion in nature... the only thing that makes a difference is power.

But if you accept that choice is a right, you must find some other means to balance out the big question in your case which is "what about who hope in organ transplant?". Your "it's natural and just too bad" simply does not cut it logically. Nature only knows strenght and no rights. If we were truly naturalistic in thought, we would realize the government harvesting us is no more unnautral then a spider eating a fly.

But of course we do not agree with such notions. Hence, I must urge you to find a better way of accounting for this rather big hole in your position... otherwise you are just saying angry words that make little sense... what rights can we have if everything's just decided on nature? The right to choose would be an illusion, a human construct that can be just as well changed by other humans. Only power and strength would be the key to that.

fymk SG

Most unfortunately you did not comprehend what I said . I was adding sarcasm with the naturistic arguments - they are just a sarcastic remark.

I already said well it is all good if people are willing to donate their organ with full knowledge of how their bodies will be used . i did recall mentioning it as a good deed .

My point is simple- it is about a right of choice. Those who refuse to be organ donors have the right to refuse on the basis of their beliefs. Those who are willing to donate organs have the right to donate their organs. I am not going against that measure .

Not once did I say I was against organ donation. I am for organ donation provided the deceased had given their consent to it in the first place.

I am arguing against getting automatic organ cadaveric status out of people who might not be aware of the fact that they are going to one. What is so inhumane about that?

What if someone whose religion objects to it but they still remove it because the person did not fill in the opt out form due to ignorance? Just dismiss their beliefs and cannibalise their body because someone else needs organ? Well doesn't it sound like soylent green itself? Just don't tell people how they are eating people likewise don't tell people their bodies are being farmed for organs.

What is so wrong with a volunter opt in system other than you instantly gain a lot potential unsuspecting and unknowing cadaveric donors in the automatic opt in system?

I am on the bone marrow registry. That's fine with me because it's my choice and I have an idea of how they extract donor bone marrows and I am well aware of the risks. I do not go around calling people who do not put themselves on the registry selfish or inhumane.

I believe that people should have a right to make their choice. One incursion on rights like this will come with another in the future . Did you know that some transplantation organisations already started discussing taking fresh organs out of people they deem as unlikely to survive? What makes you think the day has not come yet? It has already came - they taken out organs of a man who was not declared properly as dead in USA. So what makes you think Singapore won't follow suit?

I rather have an opt in system where people sign the papers and agree to donate their organs. Rather than to have some doctors hesitating about taking organs or not in fear of the family and wasting possible donor organs. Rather than to have some family shocked by the plain desecration of a loved one's body because they were ignorant of the policy. Who is to say some of the opt out forms won't be lost in the mail or the system?

So yes , I think going for an volunteer opt in system is better. This way people like you and stupidissmart can go volunteer happily via signing a full consent form with the heavenly bliss of knowing you can save someone. That is not a problem with me. Is that a problem with you?

fymk SG

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rotting flesh still nourish the plant life and support insect life which forms part of the eco system . More plants the merrier - climate warming is now coming and we need to counter it with plant life . How is that for an argument? It is as ridiculous as yours.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Techincally u r wrong since your body is burn to ash.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like I said , I didn't kill them. The nature of the disease did.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nah, u just watch them die without lifting a finger. U r not a murderer but u r heartless

It is not only about the family being not happy . It is also about respecting their beliefs. You thrown me so many hypotheticals so now let me throw you one :

Hypothetical one
A family strongly believes in a religion which forbids violation of the body unless it is in exceptional cases aka explosions. So to violate any part of their body aka organ transplant - it means going straight to hell for eternity .

Their son believe in this religion as well. However due to their ignorance of an opt out , they did not sign the form to opt out. One day the son gets into an accident. His organs are removed automatically because their religion is not islam and the family was overseas on holiday. So when they return to find their son's body violated - corneas, heart , liver etc removed.

Now that means going straight to hell for eternity and it is a religious belief that you cannot change no matter how good the cause might seem.

Don't tell me that at least someone will be saved and don't try to say it is all good in most religions. It is about affecting other people's religious beliefs especially the part about their son burning in hell for the whole eternity.
____________________________________________________________

In Singapore, if there is any info at all on how many organs a person is entitled to have - who they exclude , heck not much is even known about organ donation except ' you are saving lives etc ', it is sure freaking hard to find.

Well I strongly think that a person is entitled to the knowledge if they are to donate their bodies.

stupidissmart SG

Do you know suspicion? It is a human trait and I do have my suspicions

It is okie to have suspicious and if the chances r not high, we have to let it go Rolling Eyes Otherwise there r too many things to safeguard and your life is drastically affected

Not if I have a burial plot overseas . It can be flown out.

Then another fact u need to know is your body is in a coffin and only fungus can grow without sunlight and fungus do not produce oxygen and your argument is still flawed. But anyway tis is a stupid thing to argue on Rolling Eyes

Look who is talking. I seem to recall that someone has a strong stance to be a donor but cannot be bothered filling in the forms so an opt in system is more convenient for that person.

As said, I do not believe I will die tat fast so I will not inconvenience myself to fill up the form at my inconvenience Rolling Eyes Tis is human nature to drag and drag and drag and sadly men follow the dead line when it comes to start work.

But I am different from people who not only refuse to donate his organs, but also encourage people not to do it by stating US case, claiming people get their organs harvested before they die, saying the weak deserve to die and people shouldn't donate their organs as it tilt the balance, do it out of respect for nature etc etc... U know I only reach page 2 of tis thread and u have already made many remarks on why people should not go for organ donation. Rolling Eyes Now look who is the heartless one

Earth has its way of population control for animals and even human beings - the weakest die , the strongest survive . This is the way life works. Some have the unfortunate time to die early and some survive to old age takes them . There is a delicate balance and I refuse to tilt it either way.

I am on the bone marrow registry . Are you on it because you know you actually do have to fill up forms? If you are not on it, I have the right to call you heartless as well.

U see, claim is cheap here Rolling Eyes I can claim I am on the bone marrow registry and I donate blood every 2 months and I had went to africa and serve for 10 years and I donated my cornea and kidney and liver to the needy. U don't know me, u can't say it is wrong

Hypothetical one
A family strongly believes in a religion which forbids violation of the body unless it is in exceptional cases aka explosions. So to violate any part of their body aka organ transplant - it means going straight to hell for eternity .

Their son believe in this religion as well. However due to their ignorance of an opt out , they did not sign the form to opt out. One day the son gets into an accident. His organs are removed automatically because their religion is not islam and the family was overseas on holiday. So when they return to find their son's body violated - corneas, heart , liver etc removed.

Well there is a flaw in the sense tat the son, if he believe in tis religion so fervously, why he did not go to his church/temple/mosque and did not get informed by their head of the religion. Rolling Eyes He do not have any friends in the religion to inform him ? His parents also don't go to church ?

And wat is the chance of your case scenario of an ignorant person who claim to be religious and not attend religious sites, never read newspaper or watch the news, with no friends tat inform him of tis suppose to be big news, the head of his religion also don't care for him, his parents and relative also do not go to the religious building, he is not from the major religions in singapore and tis guy suddenly die in an accident when all his friends and relatives went for a holiday overseas ? (All major religion in singapore agree tat donating organs is good and not against their religion, except muslim. But u already say he is not a muslim) Because of catering to tis possibility of freak incident, many lives r lost and r in pain and their loved ones grieve Rolling Eyes

If u felt tat we should cater for such rare chances, then we should scrape off all laws as well because freak cases can happen to people with no intention to commit crime. There is tis guy who is walking on the street then suddenly fall and molest a girl who is walking down the corner. She is offended and sue the guy and do not believe the guy had fell. So tis guy went to jail because he had no evidence and witness. Now tis scenario have a higher possibility of happening than your scenario. So should we make molest legal ? Rolling Eyes

In Singapore, if there is any info at all on how many organs a person is entitled to have - who they exclude , heck not much is even known about organ donation except ' you are saving lives etc ', it is sure freaking hard to find.

Well I strongly think that a person is entitled to the knowledge if they are to donate their bodies.

Difficult to find ? U just type "organ donation singapore" in google and the relevant website pop out int he first row Rolling Eyes

http://www.moh.gov.sg/corp/about/faqs/policy/details.do?cid=cat_faqs_pol_hota&id=8257615

Currently, Singaporeans and Singapore Permanent Residents who turn 21 years of age, or foreigners who obtain Singapore citizenship or permanent residence status will receive a letter from MOH informing them that they will be included under HOTA. They are also told that they can opt out if they object to having their organs removed upon death. MOH also informs the general public of HOTA twice a year through the main local newspapers in the 4 official languages.

With the passage of the Human Organ (Amendment) Bill, the Ministry embarked on a 6-month publicity campaign on the revised HOTA. The Ministry of Health also sent information brochures on the revised HOTA to every household.

For persons who have previously objected to the removal of their kidneys under HOTA, their objections are still valid. However, they would have to opt out for the other organs if they do not wish to donate them upon their death.

fymk SG

Originally posted by stupidissmart:

Difficult to find ? U just type "organ donation singapore" in google and the relevant website pop out int he first row

http://www.moh.gov.sg/corp/about/faqs/policy/details.do?cid=cat_faqs_pol_hota&id=8257615

Currently, Singaporeans and Singapore Permanent Residents who turn 21 years of age, or foreigners who obtain Singapore citizenship or permanent residence status will receive a letter from MOH informing them that they will be included under HOTA. They are also told that they can opt out if they object to having their organs removed upon death. [b]MOH also informs the general public of HOTA twice a year through the main local newspapers in the 4 official languages.

With the passage of the Human Organ (Amendment) Bill, the Ministry embarked on a 6-month publicity campaign on the revised HOTA. The Ministry of Health also sent information brochures on the revised HOTA to every household.

For persons who have previously objected to the removal of their kidneys under HOTA, their objections are still valid. However, they would have to opt out for the other organs if they do not wish to donate them upon their death. [/b]

So you think everyone has internet access like you and I?

As said, I do not believe I will die tat fast so I will not inconvenience myself to fill up the form at my inconvenience Tis is human nature to drag and drag and drag and sadly men follow the dead line when it comes to start work.

But I am different from people who not only refuse to donate his organs, but also encourage people not to do it by stating US case, claiming people get their organs harvested before they die, saying the weak deserve to die and people shouldn't donate their organs as it tilt the balance, do it out of respect for nature etc etc... U know I only reach page 2 of tis thread and u have already made many remarks on why people should not go for organ donation. Now look who is the heartless one

Earth has its way of population control for animals and even human beings - the weakest die , the strongest survive . This is the way life works. Some have the unfortunate time to die early and some survive to old age takes them . There is a delicate balance and I refuse to tilt it either way.

ROFL claiming? It is not a claim in USA . It already happened. The coroner declared it a homicide . Any arguments with the coroner over that matter?

That nature argument was sarcasm to someone else using the same argument as you are telling people they are selfish because they want to opt out . You might as well take the riches away from the filthy rich so that the poor can survive instead of jumping into MRT tracks. How about that?

But sorry , Singapore is a not a welfare state ....but hey all Singaporeans except muslims are automatically opted into the system for their organs regardless of whether they know it or not.

Twice a year advertisement and only 1 six month period after that bill was passed ? Oh my ....YOU CALL THAT PUBLIC EdUCATION? ......I CALL THAT LAZINESS . If they cannot be bothered to tell people about organ donation , how would they expect to get a rise in organ donation? So they use the excuse of low organ donations and get in an auto opt in system for CONVENIENCE.

Wait...organs are rotting and transplant recipients dying from lack of organs ...how about people thrown out of HDB because they lost their jobs. Should we now go rob the rich to give to the poor since IT IS FOR THE GOOD OF ALL?

I am not objecting to people who fully consented to be a cadaveric organ donor - how many million times do you want me to repeat myself? I said it is GOOD to have people who know that they want to be cadaveric donors.

I am objecting to automatic opt in when you have people posting in this thread that they didn't even know until now that they were opt in without their consent or KNOWLEDGE. I am against people who call others selfish because they do not want to donate based on their beliefs.

You want to be a great organ donor - no problem with that . What's wrong with an volunteer opt in system? Alot of countries do donor volunteer opt in or get consent from families.

With an voluntary opt in system , the doctors can remove organs from the donor without fear of reprisal from the family. Organs get readily removed and transported to the recipient post haste instead of having a family come and then make noise while the organ degrades. Remember Anger always follow grief - families always want to blame somebody for the death of their loved ones.

A voluntary signed consent or donor card means a world to the doctors and the recipient. And the family will know it is the wishes of the deceased to help someone.

SO WHAT IS BLOODY WRONG WITH HAVING A VOLUNTEER OPT IN ?

Don't talk so much - you are too lazy to sign up TO BE A DONOR so you want a convenient system to allow your organs to be donated while others JUST GET ROBBED OUT OF THEIRS after their demise. Yes I reserve to call that robbery if someone is ignorant of the system.

Don't change the argument about who is heartless - I am NOT discouraging people from donating . Someone did ask me about the basis of my suspicion and I quoted my case stating a real situation that happened. Well , if the government is so keen on harvesting organs this way , I have a right to my suspicions and I have a right to my decision .

fymk SG

Now we know that is a very good story you just told but seriously I am on the bone marrow registry .

Like what you said , you also don't know me. You have no right to judge me or call me selfish because I strongly feel that taking people's organs without their consent or knowledge is wrong.

You are arguing with me on the premise that you think I am against organ donation. I am not if it is free and willing , NOT like an auto opt in .

My stance on organ donation for the umpteen time : A person is performing a good deed if he/she wishes to donate their body with full knowledge and CONSENT. I have no objections to that.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

12 February 2007 · 05:31 AM:
nature took their chance away so why should those who refuse to donate should be made to feel bad about what is not their fault ?

Earth has its way of population control for animals and even human beings - the weakest die , the strongest survive . This is the way life works. Some have the unfortunate time to die early and some survive to old age takes them . There is a delicate balance and I refuse to tilt it either way

I objected to it because of suspicion or put it rather as paranoia , and out of respect for the nature and its ways.

12 February 2007 · 07:47 PM

13 February 2007 · 03:40 PM

[quote] 15 February 2007 · 09:23 PM
Besides I do not think it is selfish . It is the right of an individual to protect the sanctity of his body even after his/her demise. How one wants to deal with their body is based on their own decision. An automatic opt in is not what many are aware of and it is unfair to them.

16 February 2007 · 10:29 PM

Like I said , I didn't kill them. The nature of the disease did

There you go, it is apparent to me that you are so fixated with rights.

I agree, we all have RIGHTS, but my question is this have you been so fixated with your RIGHTS that you have entirely dismissed and forgotten about the CONSQUENCES of your RIGHTS?

So far, you have studiously avoided answering the implications of people [I]choosing[/I] not to be an organ donor you have instead focused on our right to have a choice, with which there was never any argument.

My question is this, we have this choice but does it follow through that the varying alternatives we can take with this choice are all equal? You seem to think so, but after looking at the issue I find it hard to believe that you cannot see how you are contradicting yourself quite obviously in your speech which you have tried, but failed to explain away as mere sarcasm.

Even if it was sarcasm one wonders then what is your real answer to people who suffer from organ failure? It seems even with all the sarcasm removed, its still the same, weak its too bad its nature which effectively demolishes your own argument on our right to have choice because a stronger entity taking away the rights of a weaker one is the only way that nature knows.

Even looking at your position in the most lenient of ways, you are trying to suggest that there is no difference between donors and non-donors just the choice which once again has proven to be untrue. There are very lasting and dramatic consequences from taking either way in this choice, certainly more then your position has given account for with your attempt at sarcasm. In fact you have more or less dodged serious questions about your choice and attempted to heap all the onus of argument and justification on the other side, which strikes me as inherently dishonest. You havent even sufficiently justified even the basic premise of your own position to begin with- sure we all have rights and choices but where does this come from and why ought it be obeyed? From nature? Certainly not. Or is it just something we arbitrarily assume and equally arbitrary in the eyes of the government?

In fact you have given up entirely any justification for your outrage of the violation of the body by our governmental policies by your studious avoidance of the question. If anything it is your kind of thinking and position that actually [I]justifies[/I] and [I]reinforces[/I] the governmental argument on this issue from its basic premise, just that the two of you went different ways about it. This I truly find [I]ironic[/I] and [I]sarcastic[/I].

I suggest you thread this issue lightly, and try not to stamp on your own toes in your haste to make a point.

After all has been considered, it seems your naturalistic arguments are hardly sarcasm... they are just an attempt to avoid answering the questions you ought to answer and try to put it all on the other side.

Let's move on shall we? What then, shall we do with people who have organ failure? What is the right thing for us to choose?

« Previous Page Next Page »