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?

oxford mushroom SG

Everyone agrees that we must get consent for organ donation and incidentally I have signed an organ donation card some 20 years ago in medical school.

However, there are just too few of us who have signed an organ donation card. As SIS said, there are too many Singaporeans who are just too lazy to take the effort to sign up. Given that among the small numbers who have signed an organ donation card, an even smaller number would be brain dead for some reason before their heart stops (that is the window of opportunity needed for cadaveric organ transplant), the number of organs available for transplantation is very limited. Meanwhile, many patients die from the lack of an organ whilst every year, healthy organs are buried or burnt along with brain-dead victims.

I believe that an opt-out system does not take away consent. It presumes consent for the vast majority of Singaporeans who do not object to organ donation, but would not take the time and effort to sign an organ donation card. However, that minority has the right to register an objection and withdraw consent. Death is not something people want to think about. That is the reason an opt-out system is also being considered in the UK, where thousands die for the lack of a transplant organ or risk all sorts of complications going to India to buy an organ.

The government can do more to make it easier for Singaporeans to opt out. I agree there can be greater public education and opt-form forms can be made available in more public places, eg. polyclinics, all hospital information desks, RCs and community centres, petrol kiosks even...It should also be possible to opt out online and the web address should be published in the media.

I understand the reluctance to 'encourage' people to opt out but Singaporeans should be given a choice. However, I would advocate that those who opt out would not be given an organ transplant in the event that they need one, or unless there is no other suitable recipient in the entire transplant queue.

stupidissmart SG

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?

U don't anyhow link other part of your reply to tis one. The claim portion is about u saying u have bone marrow donation which is obviously unable to acertain and can very well be bullsh%t. Anyone can come out with cock and bull story

U want to look at the reply to your US thingy, it is stating there r accidents and mishap in every aspect in life. Doctors can make mistake, but we still have to rely on doctors to treat illness. Drivers make mistake, but we still have to take a car or bus to travel about. U don't twist replies from here to there. I never stat tat the US thingy is a claim. U have lost your integrity in forum by putting words into my mouth

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.

Wow. 6 months of public education is not enough. Sending out forms to all houses is not enough. Printing on newspaper twice every year is not enough. Why don't we spend all our budget by massive employing people to give everybody a call every hour telling them about HOTA ? Only will tat be enough ?

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?

Com'on, u r giving a bad example here. Name me a person who is thrown off from HDB because he is too poor to pay. Rolling Eyes Furthermore, when u donate organs when u die, u did a great conribution tat is priceless and yet lose virtually nothing. When u donate money to poor people. U lose as much things as the other people gain.

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.

Don't bluff lah. U have been telling people NOT to donate organs by stating US case, by telling people doctor may harvest your organs out before your time, by telling parents r helpless when they see their son organs taken out, by telling it is against nature will and saying the weak deserve to die. Com'on, where is your forum integrity again ? U have been twisting and turning your stand as the wind blows.

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.

I have given your example as how improbable it is for someone religious to donate their organs unwittingly. Where is your reply on it ?

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.

U know wat is the problem ? It is not enough. U say so much thing but if no one volunteer because of laziness, the whole idea of donating organs become useless. As said before, the problem of auto opt in is people r angry. The problem of auto opt out is people die. Which is more critical ?

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.

I am lazy, I admit. It is the problem of the masses. Which people here who have not opt out the system but have sign in to donate their organs before ? Why don't u ask around and see the terribly lack of response. Tis is reality u know. If u ask Singqapore Tyrannosaur, Kenshin, fireice, oo_oo_oo, PRP who has supported for auto opt in, it is likely they also never opt in before the system of auto opt in set in Rolling Eyes

I have admitted I am lazy, why don't u admit u r heartless ? U view the people who need organs as the weaker part of the food chain, u view they should be eliminated to balance nature, u view they deserve to die from diesease than receive organs, u encourage people not to donate organs by telling scary stories of people getting their organs harvested before their time. U have already admitted u r selfish, so tat is ok. Now r u heartless as well ?

However, I would advocate that those who opt out would not be given an organ transplant in the event that they need one, or unless there is no other suitable recipient in the entire transplant queue.

They r at the bottom of the demand supply. It is stated in the MOH website. So if all the people who donated their organs get their organs, then instead of wasting the organs they r given to the peole who have opt out. Rolling Eyes Strangely muslim is exempted from tis clause... I was just thinking whether is it halal to receive organ transplant because their old organs have to be taken out before a new one put in...

fymk SG

Like I said umpteen times : I have no issues with people wanting to donate their organs with FULL KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT .

Don't fight me on an emotional ground when I am fighting on a principle of choice. Sure take my comments out of context if you wish to win your argument about how heartless or inhumane I am when I am just against an auto opt in policy.

I have an issue with the auto opt in policy . It is stealthy and dishonest. It is just another convenient way of treating people as potential organ farms.

I loathe people calling anyone names or accusing them of selfishness because we might not believe the same thing. There is no wrong or right in making a choice in organ donation. You just have to sell people the idea and the benefits of another receiving a life saving organ from another. If people refuse on their beliefs - their choice and they do not deserved to be namecalled. However most will become free and willing organ donors if they know something can be done further after their death.

That is why I fully support a volunteer opt in system. People can sign up and be donors. If one does not agree on the basis of their beliefs, there will be plenty of others who will agree to be cadaveric organ donors. That is not a problem. The only problem is that the policymakers cannot be bothered with such a system and they go for the next convenient way of organ farming. What is so inhumane or wrong of supporting a voluntary opt in system? If they have a voluntary opt in system - I would not be even speaking out about the organ donation this way.

My parents have made it known to me that they do not want their organs out of them for fear and suspicion that their life might get terminated prematurely after the auto opt in policy. So who is going to assure them that this is not going to happen when there is a degree of mistrust of such a policy? Are they wrong to object by signing a form ? No. Can I prevent them from being suspicious? No. Because I am suspicious already of a policy which is stealthy in nature.

And you have one forumner saying that he cannot be bothered to fill forms up despite his strong support of organ donation, and he goes around calling others who refuse selfish . Isn't that hypocritical?

There are many ways to go around letting people volunteer themselves happily as cadaveric organ donors other than ENFORCING a law on them to be automatically inducted as cadaveric donors if they are not muslims.

Yes I like to be strong on rights and choices. It is what protects humans as individuals and communities. The policy violates the rights of unsuspecting donors the right of consent. It is just wrong. One wrong does not make a right regardless of how lifesaving it might seem.

fymk SG

So do I care? I don't . I opted out. I don't get to survive on the list. I don't need to be coerced into signing away the right to my body. Thank you very much.

U want to look at the reply to your US thingy, it is stating there r accidents and mishap in every aspect in life. Doctors can make mistake, but we still have to rely on doctors to treat illness. Drivers make mistake, but we still have to take a car or bus to travel about. U don't twist replies from here to there. I never stat tat the US thingy is a claim. U have lost your integrity in forum by putting words into my mouth

"... but also encourage people not to do it by stating US case, claiming people get their organs harvested before they die...."

Right now about you accusing me of putting words in your mouth about claims (see above): the case of that american is such that the coroner ruled he died as a result of removal of his organs . Well excuse me , who is being dishonest here?

People makes mistakes all the time ....I sure hope not when a doctor treats me or declares me dead. I worked in the healthcare system long enough to see enough fuckups. Unless someone can convince me to trust a system I worked for - I will continue to have my doubts and keep to them.

Did I discourage people at all? I just hammered at the principle of the auto opt in policy. I didn't say that volunteering to be an organ donor is wrong did I?

Go ahead paint me as heartless . I am more worried about the transgression of rights that come with a policy - it will not just affect me or you but others as well. Did you even bother to read further down that american article especially about the part of organ quality?

fymk SG

I didn't say thrown off . I said thrown out of HDB and forgot to add flats due to editing issues. See the thread on homeless and HDB foreclosures.

have given your example as how improbable it is for someone religious to donate their organs unwittingly. Where is your reply on it ?

You said most religions of Singapore agree that organ donation is good. You forget that there are some religions which do not agree or might not agree. For example, there are very religious jews follow a law called nivul hamet which is the objection of forbidden descecration of the body as well. There are jehovah witnesses who object to organ donation. And both groups are present in Singapore.

fymk SG

Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Everyone agrees that we must get consent for organ donation and incidentally I have signed an organ donation card some 20 years ago in medical school.

However, there are just too few of us who have signed an organ donation card. As SIS said, there are too many Singaporeans who are just too lazy to take the effort to sign up. Given that among the small numbers who have signed an organ donation card, an even smaller number would be brain dead for some reason before their heart stops (that is the window of opportunity needed for cadaveric organ transplant), the number of organs available for transplantation is very limited. Meanwhile, many patients die from the lack of an organ whilst every year, healthy organs are buried or burnt along with brain-dead victims.

I believe that an opt-out system does not take away consent. It presumes consent for the vast majority of Singaporeans who do not object to organ donation, but would not take the time and effort to sign an organ donation card. However, that minority has the right to register an objection and withdraw consent. Death is not something people want to think about. That is the reason an opt-out system is also being considered in the UK, where thousands die for the lack of a transplant organ or risk all sorts of complications going to India to buy an organ.

The government can do more to make it easier for Singaporeans to opt out. I agree there can be greater public education and opt-form forms can be made available in more public places, eg. polyclinics, all hospital information desks, RCs and community centres, petrol kiosks even...It should also be possible to opt out online and the web address should be published in the media.

I understand the reluctance to 'encourage' people to opt out but Singaporeans should be given a choice. However, I would advocate that those who opt out would [b]not be given an organ transplant in the event that they need one, or unless there is no other suitable recipient in the entire transplant queue.
[/b]

Overall the government as I recalled never did to emphasize much on organ donation during my time as a student or when I was working. It would be interesting to see what the UK residents say about an auto opt in system.

HOTA stated they will be placed on a lower priority list if they opt out than those who opt in.

One way to raise opt in rate is to register consent on driver's licence or identification cards. When the person acquires either of them - ID being redone at 30 for the age of consent - they should be asked if they wish to be an organ donor. That is the way to go . I do believe the americans have the driver licence system of documentating organ donors in some states. Some are legally binding and some are not.

stupidissmart SG

So do I care? I don't . I opted out. I don't get to survive on the list. I don't need to be coerced into signing away the right to my body. Thank you very much.

MUIS issued a fatwa saying it was ok for them to donate - why aren't they auto opted in then?

Because MUIS say it have to come with conditions.

On 25 August 2004, the Fatwa Committee of the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (Muis) ruled that if a person wants to pledge his organ(s) for transplantation, his next-of-kin's consent is no longer a condition. Instead, he is only required to obtain the witness of any two male Muslim adults.

The next-of-kin must respect the pledger's decision by allowing the organ(s) to be transplanted upon his death, as long as the condition of the pledge does not contravene Islamic Law.

If the deceased had not pledged his organ(s), during his lifetime, the decision to donate the deceased's organ(s) rests on his next-of-kin.

Yah true, but u show tis example to discourage people from donating organs isn't it ? Do u read properly my reply ? If u r a bad reader u don't blame people from putting words into your mouth. I claim u use the US case to discourage people from donating organs. True or false ?

Did I discourage people at all? I just hammered at the principle of the auto opt in policy. I didn't say that volunteering to be an organ donor is wrong did I?

Tis is your past reply

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.

Here u blatently tell people tat weak people should die when their time come and we shouldn't upset nature by donating organs. Is tat not discouraging ?

How about tis

Once an organ goes into you - you have to take anti rejection drugs - those are really the pits and a risk of the organ failing or be rejected means more suffering. I won't even ask my family to donate their organs to me because the risk is too high for them .

U r telling people even if the organs is donated to people they still live lousy lives. Is tis encouraging organ donation or discouraging them ? Wat do u mean by "pits" ? Encouraging people for donation ? Giving organ may give the people more suffering ? Encouraging or discouraging ?

To have a donor's heart , cornea and lungs mean a person died so that I could have their organs? No bloody thanks.

Again a stupid misconception and discouraging organ donation. U r getting the organs from dead people ok ?

The body is mine made up of genetic structures of my ancestors , the DNA match is likely to be within my family. Do you even know anything about organ tranplants? It is all about the luck of the draw for matching organs between strangers. Alot of people still die on waiting lists because they cannot even find a matching donor from those who die suddenly . If the donor is within the family and has a match, the person have a lower rate of organ rejection than taking a donor organ of a stranger?

Now wat is tis ? R u encouraging or discouraging organ donation here ? U r telling people since we can only donate to strangers, they r still playing dice on whether they live or not. Doesn't more organs donated ensure more people have the right match and thus survive ?

Com'on, I have put enough examples of u discouraging people from donating their organs. Face it man. Your earlier replies to the thread r discouraging the whole idea of donating organs. It is only after some hammering to u then u start to switch your stand abut organ donation

I didn't say thrown off . I said thrown out of HDB and forgot to add flats due to editing issues. See the thread on homeless and HDB foreclosures.

Now do u see anyone with no where to stay in singapore ? The people who defaulted for their payment can still seek gov help and they will lease them smaller flats at a price of $50 per month.

I think u better read properly. I did mention tat the odds of a person who is not within the major religion is pretty low. How many jews r there in singapore ? Next, they r suppose to go to synaguoge on saturday. They r a very close committee where interactions between people r regular. Jehovah witness r cults and their member here r limited as well. So the odds tat such freak incident happened is still low low and very low

fymk SG

Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Because MUIS say it have to come with conditions.

On 25 August 2004, the Fatwa Committee of the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (Muis) ruled that if a person wants to pledge his organ(s) for transplantation, his next-of-kin's consent is no longer a condition. Instead, he is only required to obtain the witness of any two male Muslim adults.

The next-of-kin must respect the pledger's decision by allowing the organ(s) to be transplanted upon his death, as long as the condition of the pledge does not contravene Islamic Law.

If the deceased had not pledged his organ(s), during his lifetime, the decision to donate the deceased's organ(s) rests on his next-of-kin.

Fair enough

False . My opinion is my own and I do not expect others to take it up. Someone asked for the basis of my disagreement and I answered it. How are you going to convince someone to trust the system? I already have a fair amount of distrust of the government and it will transfer onto any policies they set up. Singapore is not very known for being open.

I didn't start this thread calling it a "robbery" - someone else did and I agree with their viewpoint on calling it a "robbery"

Com'on, I have put enough examples of u discouraging people from donating their organs. Face it man. Your earlier replies to the thread r discouraging the whole idea of donating organs. It is only after some hammering to u then u start to switch your stand abut organ donation

I am stating my personal views and I already stated my stance for a voluntary opt in system . How you wish to color my character is entirely your choice but I would not hesitate to defend it . And as I said nature arguments are just a sarcastic answer to someone else.

Yes I am human , yes I want my family to come first . What's wrong with that? At least I can frankly admit that I am no saint. SO? Have a problem with that? I won't ask my family to donate organs to me as a living donor either. Are you calling that my personal view a general discouragement?

As for my statement about someone being dead for me to take their organs, well that is my personal view again and I opted out of the system so I am fine there. I recall reading somewhere - Austria has an auto opt in system as well but people don't die fast enough to supply the organs. I do not wish for someone die so that I get their organs to stay alive.

Organ transplantations is not a fairy tale of a happy endings. Anti rejection drugs will become their life and if they don't adhere to it , the risk of organ rejection is high and very painful and even if they adhere to it , there is still a risk of organ rejection . Those facts are made known to recipients when they are told they need transplants. What is wrong about openly stating those facts? Don't like the way it is told? I don't moddly coddle people from such facts. Too bad if you cannot take it as it is . I will not make an apology for stating a fact.

As for the article pertaining to USA , that is also a fact. It happened. Not some fairy tale. Do you have an issue with facts being told?

Now do u see anyone with no where to stay in singapore ? The people who defaulted for their payment can still seek gov help and they will lease them smaller flats at a price of $50 per month.

Go read about the homeless "by choice" thread. Life is not so rosy as you will like to think it is

So what if it is very low ? It can still happen. Probability does not include dismissal.

stupidissmart SG

Com'on, u r stating your stand and it "do not expect people to take it up". Tis is a public forum. Wat u said influence people. In tis sense u influence people not to donate organs.

Your distrust of gov shouldn't be brought to the people who need organs. Then u have not become pro-people but simply anti pap. Not all decisions made by pap is wrong.

Too bad your sacarsm comes from your words and u have to answer for it. And yah, u right to say the below listed points, but I am right in saying u r discouraging people from donating organs.

Did I discourage people at all? I just hammered at the principle of the auto opt in policy. I didn't say that volunteering to be an organ donor is wrong did I?

Tis is wrong. U discourage people to donate organs. Case closed.

So what if it is very low ? It can still happen. Probability does not include dismissal.

I have given u an example of accidental molesting. We cannot cater for all freak cases in life, especially at the risk of many many lives. Do u really read the reply I have given ?

fymk SG

Your distrust of gov shouldn't be brought to the people who need organs. Then u have not become pro-people but simply anti pap. Not all decisions made by pap is wrong.
Too bad your sacarsm comes from your words and u have to answer for it. And yah, u right to say the below listed points, but I am right in saying u r discouraging people from donating organs.

Tis is wrong. U discourage people to donate organs. Case closed.

Your accidental molesting hypothetical is somewhat irritating at best. There is a justice system where a man is free to defend himself.

Once a body is considered desecrated - it is desecrated. That constitutes a serious nature of a religious or cultural sense that it might influence the afterlife of a person. If you do not understand that but call it too bad for the grieving family , that would make you no better than I as you claim me to be .

stupidissmart SG

Freedom of speech and I exercise it to voice my views. Sorry that you cannot grasp the simple concept of freedom of speech. I doubt many will agree with me and some might violently disagree like you do but I can accept that.

You are free to your opinion. And I am free to voice mine as long as it is not against the law.

U r not answering the question at hand. No one is saying u can't speak your mind. Did I say u have to shut up ? U can, but it just shows u r discouraging people from donating organs which u claim u do not. U have twist and turn your stand. U have shown to be heartless. Tat is it

Again, you are entitled to your opinions. However it is unfair to say I am anti PAP . I just don't agree with them on certain convenient ways they make their rules but that does not mean I attack every single one of their policies.

I already have a fair amount of distrust of the government and it will transfer onto any policies they set up. Singapore is not very known for being open.

I must remind u of your previous statement. U claim u have a fair amount or distrust on any policy they set up. I don't know man, sounds like u have a biased opinion of the gov and any policies they set up. If u don't want to be label as anti PAP, then ok lor...

I am actually quite pro people - in the sense they should have the right to consent.

They have the right to consent by not rejecting Rolling Eyes

You call it discouragement by stating facts about organ transplants and anti-rejection drugs or even stating an unfortunate incident that happen? A fact is a fact no matter how bad it sounds. Will it discourage anyone? Negative - considering people have been volunteering to be donors prior to the scheme. I doubt none will sign an opt out scheme unless they have their own reasons against organ donation prior to this forum thread .

Then how does anyone discourage people from donating organs ? If stating tat doctors rob your organs when u r alive, life after organ transplant is not worth living, going against nature by donating organ is not discouraging, then wat is discouraging ? All your grand talk still can't cover the fact tat your earlier statement about "not discouraging organ donation" is just crap.

Your accidental molesting hypothetical is somewhat irritating at best. There is a justice system where a man is free to defend himself.

I have already stated the man has no evidence and no witness. There is no ground of defence. He is going to be charged and the charge will be successful. A person life and future may be lost. But the world can't cater for all these if it want to function well. It can't make molesting legal. Same as your freak case. If such a thing happen to him, then my condolences to him but it can't be helped. The person probably experience the same fate much like jews being killed in war and their body not put together, or their body eaten by animals before burial or in accidents where their body part r lost forever etc. No one can guarantee the body parts for all jews to be together in all situation and tat is just too bad. So wat will happened to all these people ? If their god send them to limbo over such accidents, then u have to blame god, not the people, like u blame the organs tat fail the people and not the donater.

fymk SG

Stupidissmart,

I sense alot of emotions in your arguments.

Hey I didn't publish that information on the web - the media did about that american man. They also did it in print. Are they discouraging people? No . They are just reporting something that happen and they are putting out their opinion on it. Information flows regardless of whether I post it here or not.

I see that you still have not grasp the concept of free speech but choose to attack my personal views . That's too bad and almost laughable when you accuse me of influencing others - how much can I influence ? People have brains - they can judge and make up their own opinions.

If you want to be emotional about the plight of recipients ,that is fine by me. I do empathise with their situation. But you choose to tell me that it is just too bad for the grieving family and their beliefs if it can save a person. Well one wrong does not make a right. By virtue of that, you are in fact no better than what you make me out to be .

You want to talk about how organs save lives - that is fine by me as long as the organ donor is aware that he is a cadaveric donor. I have no issue with that. To go around calling those who refuse to donate based on their beliefs and namecalling them as heartless or selfish will not further your purpose at all.

I do believe that I am not the only one who is suspicious of the health policies and government and I am definitely not the only one who puts my family ahead first.

There are plenty who are out there who will think like I do - and it is going to be a heck lot of difficult convincing through the use of insults such as implying that "we are selfish little buggers who want to hog our organs to the grave".

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Like I said umpteen times : I have no issues with people wanting to donate their organs with FULL KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT .

Don't fight me on an emotional ground when I am fighting on a principle of choice. Sure take my comments out of context if you wish to win your argument about how heartless or inhumane I am when I am just against an auto opt in policy.

I have an issue with the auto opt in policy . It is stealthy and dishonest. It is just another convenient way of treating people as potential organ farms.

Painting out to you- which is the inadequate logical justification of your own position.

And what emotional grounds am I fighting you on? I am quite thoroughly analysing your position with pure logic. It seems to me there exists an great incongruence of sorts in your position, much akin to the person who only chooses to read one chapter of a story book and stops where it agrees with them and tries to avoid the other chapters which they should really read.

Am I taking your comments out of context? Of where these but words you carelessly made in an attempt to wildly state your own case, words that you try to disown now? I think everybody in here has eyes to see what is truly the case. Not surprisingly, you are dismissing your very own words in the same way you treat just about anything that does not agree with the way you might like to see things.

Since you consider yourself an enlightened person in this matter, and you have FULL KNOWLEDGE and FULL CONSENT to make your choice how then can you exibit such a appalling lack of knowledge about what exactly your choice means?

As I said, and in fact your subsequent posts have contained to prove but my point, you are primarily concerned with the Rights in this issue that we all have however in attempting to base your entire position merely on it you ended up bordering on the rather ridiculous, not to mention come across no more callous then the very government you accuse of treating people like livestock.

One needs to ask, with all their loud proclamations of SOLVENT GREEN, who is the emotional and irrational one here?

It seems rather unfortunate that while you are aware of rights, you seem rather ignorant to the fact that rights do not equate to consequences-less actions. As goes yet again to your recent comment on having the freedom of speech: it is true that as long as it is not against the law, we have the freedom to speak whatever it wants. However it does not follow that all the speech that results from this right is equal. Simply having the right to free speech does not mean you will not talk like an idiot.

Not to mention if you dont even understand your own rights truly what right do you have to insist on them? Are you not like yet another person who is NOT FULLY INFORMED making big choices? Only this time your own logical incongruence have automatically made them for you you arent more free the poor victims of the governmental system, you simply shifted the ignorance you yourself.

So whos the illogical one here? I can see you are starting to grasp at straws here, given how recently you tried to remind everybody you had the freedom to say whatever you want here. I think everybody is already clear on that- the only difference is that you seem to have mistaken a right to say anything you want with the ability to actually say things that make sense.

So the question remains, and to which you have not fully answered: What about those who suffer from organ failure? Is it just too bad for them? Are they expendable pawns and victims in our battle for rights against an unfair system? Is not such a mindset as yours as cold, dismissive and uncaring as the government one? If so what superiority of position does your own opinion have over the main system? It's just a mistake in the other direction every bit as grotesque and inhuman.

I do not agree with the way the auto-opt in system is done, but I think there are far better ways of skinning this cat then yours. And also seriously urge anyone who realize that they have the right to choose not take a right as to mean something they choose as if to have tea with milk or not.

oxford mushroom SG

Coroner blasted for claim of early organ harvesting

By Todd Hartman And Ellen Miller, Rocky Mountain News

An organ recovery group and the president of the Colorado Coroners Association on Tuesday rejected an accusation that a Montrose man had his organs removed before he was legally brain-dead.

The ruling from Montrose County Coroner Mark Young was "unfounded and irresponsible," said Sue Dunn, vice president of Donor Alliance of Denver, and could fan misplaced concerns "that organs could be recovered from someone who is not legally dead."

Donor Alliance was so concerned about the impact of Young's assertions on prospective donors that the group organized a press briefing that included two metro-area coroners and a neurosurgeon.

In addition, a top executive of St. Mary's Hospital in Grand Junction - where the patient was declared brain-dead and the organs were removed - flew to Denver to participate.

"The situation that has been publicized simply did not happen," Dunn said, adding that officials were "bewildered and confused" by Young's allegations.

On Monday, Young, a part-time coroner who is not a licensed physician but makes his living as a paramedic, announced in a news release that he had ruled the death of William Rardin, 31, a homicide.

Young said that St. Mary's, along with Donor Alliance, made a declaration of brain death that didn't meet "acceptable medical standards" after Rardin shot himself in the head on Sept. 26.

But other coroners closed ranks Tuesday around Donor Alliance and St. Mary's, saying that initial indications suggest all guidelines were adhered to and that Rardin was legally brain-dead.

"From what I can tell preliminarily, it does look like all the procedures were followed," said Arapahoe County Coroner Michael Doberson, who serves as the president of the Colorado Coroners Association and expects to participate in a more detailed review of the case.

Also weighing in was Mesa County coroner Rob Kurtzman, who conducted the autopsy on Rardin's body. Kurtzman, a forensic pathologist, said he found damage to the brain "typical for a gunshot wound."

"His injuries were not compatible with sustained life and the findings were typical of brain death," Kurtzman said in a statement. "They were typical of any individual who was pronounced brain-dead."

Kurtzman performed the autopsy because Rardin's body was in Mesa County, after he was declared brain-dead at St. Mary's.

Young, however, took jurisdiction of the case away from Kurtzman, saying in his news release Monday that "jurisdiction of the case was transferred from the Mesa County Coroner to the Montrose County Coroner per (state statute)."

At their briefing, Donor Alliance officials outlined the facts they say show that protocols were properly followed:

A "clearly documented brain-death note" written by a physician was part of the patient's chart at St. Mary's and the declaration was "within acceptable medical criteria."

The death declaration was made based on clinical observations and an apnea test, which measures a person's ability to breathe without mechanical support, in accordance with state law.

The brain-death note was reviewed and accepted by Donor Alliance, as well as by three other doctors.

The donor was listed on the Colorado Donor Registry, and family members cooperated with the organ donation coordinator.

Dan Prinster, senior vice president for business development at St. Mary's, said the hospital "felt strongly" it took the appropriate steps "to make sure the patient was respected and followed the necessary guidelines for us to engage Donor Alliance."

Prinster also noted that Young was the official who gave final clearance allowing organs to be recovered from Rardin even though he had the authority to delay the process pending his own review of the situation.

"One has to ask, why didn't (Young) address the issue at that time?" Prinster said.

Young could not be located for comment Tuesday.

A woman answering the phone at his office said he was in Denver attending to a family medical emergency.

Young first ran for coroner in 1998 as an unaffiliated candidate, losing handily to Republican Dr. Bob Brethouwer, a family physician, according to Montrose County Clerk and Recorder Carol Kruse.

Young switched affiliation to run against Brethouwer in the 2002 Republican primary and edged the doctor, 1,020 votes to 905. Young was unopposed in the general election.

Colorado has no qualifications for coroners other than being 18 and registered to vote, a system Kurtzman and others have long lobbied to change. Beginning with the general election of 2006, coroners will be required to take 40 hours of initial training in death investigations and 16 hours per year in subsequent years.

Many of Colorado's larger counties have forensic pathologists as coroners, but smaller counties usually do not.

Rardin's family, which resides in Montrose County, declined comment on the controversy. "We're not prepared to discuss it now," said Jon Rardin, William's father.

The coroner in this case is not a forensic pathologist and he has no medical training apart from being a paramedic. His opinion on the medical aspects of brain death certification has to be viewed as highly suspect.

foomwee88 SG

May God bless u to live through this CNY!!!!

As a Gods will never has a happy ending in life!!!! Laughing

oxford mushroom SG

Here is an excerpt of the coroner's review of the US case, so readers will get the full picture:

Coroner review

October 13, 2004

The Coroner Protocol Review Committee met and reviewed the case of the death of Mr. William Rardin. The members of the committee are as follows:

Coroner Protocol Review Committee Members:

Michael Dobersen, MD, Ph D., Coroner, Arapahoe County Thomas Henry, MD, Coroner, Denver County Thomas Bak, MD, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center Mark Randall, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Jefferson and Gilpin County Diane Balkin, Deputy District Attorney, Denver County Patricia D. Brewster, Chief Executive Officer, Donor Alliance Sue Dunn, Vice President of Organ Operations, Donor Alliance

Others Present:

J. Adair Prall, MD, Neurosurgeon, Littleton Adventist Hospital Robert Breeze, MD, Neurosurgeon, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center D. Nikki Wheeler, Director of Communications/PR, Donor Alliance

Documents Reviewed In Reference to the Rardin Case:

Montrose Memorial Hospital Chart St. Mary's Hospital Chart Donor Alliance Case Chart Supplemental Documents:

Montrose County Coroner's Office October 4th Press Release Colorado State Statute 12-36-136 Guidelines for the Determination of Death American Academy of Neurology Practice Parameters: Determining Brain Death in Adults Neurology 1995; 45:1003-1011 Determining Brain Death in Adults Donor Alliance Standards for Brain Death Determination St. Mary's Hospital Manual Patient Care Standard: Brain Death Determination St. Mary's Hospital Apnea Testing of Intubated Adult Patients St. Mary's Hospital Patient Care Organ and Tissue Donation National Organ Transplant Act- 1984, Title 42 United States Code (USC), Part H-organ transplants, Section 274e October 18, 2001, Donor Alliance Coroner Protocol Mark Young's October 4, 2004 Press Release

Prior to making its findings and reaching its conclusions, the committee reviewed all of the listed documents, considered statements made by Mark Young to the media and to members of Donor Alliance. The committee also relied on the following: conversations committee members had with the doctors that were involved in the medical care of Mr. Rardin, comments, expert opinions, and conversations with Donor Alliance personnel, and conversations with you.

The Findings of the Committee:

1. No homicide occurred. Mr. Young should reconsider his finding and amend the death certificate to reflect the accurate and irrefutable cause of death as a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head, and the manner of death as a suicide.

2. The actions of Mr. Young were based on a lack of information and an inappropriate understanding of the medical and legal issues involved. His actions were reckless when, despite ample and competent evidence to the contrary, he rendered the ruling and completed the death certificate indicating that this death was a homicide due to the removal of Mr. Rardin's internal organs by an organ recovery team. It was also irresponsible for him to then release these findings to the media, without appropriate factual confirmation and determination.

3. These actions have served to undermine the public trust in the organ donation system, as well as the public trust in the health care, coroner and criminal justice systems.

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/archives2/archives2mail/mail332.html

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

So moving on shall we, lets cut a lot of the sub-arguments at get to the heart of the matter. At the end of the day, when all is said and done what exactly should be do about it?

I am not entirely sure fmyks idea of abolishing the entire thing and relying entirely on education and hoping to get the public to sign up to be a donor works- not as long as we are the kind of mentality we are currently and these are still very real lives being affect that we are talking here. fmyk is perhaps only concerned with protecting rights, but goes no further into the very real realities of the social, economic and emotional costs of organ failure to our society. The fact remains is this: that even as we struggle to educate our people to realize the value of being a donor very real people are dying. And fmyks dismissive attitude towards this as a non issue is highly disturbing, not to mention contradictory to her own passion for human rights.

In short his/her/its solution is like having an idea for a cure-all for all the ills in society but having no feasible way of implementing it without great costs in itself. Her method of an entirely elective donor program protects rights to the highest degree not because it is a moral system but simply because it is a system that requires simply apathy and inaction to protect rights. All a person needs to do is not give two hoots, regardless of all the education he has been given to the contrary to defeat this. And know this: this person is mostly not a person who is even opposed to being a donor, but simply one that has no view on the issue or sees it as unimportant.

As they way we are currently, in is in many of our natures to avoid making choices if they are not necessary. As long as we make organ donation a by-the-way choice which we can put off if we want, people will die not because we elected not to donate, but because many of us simply didnt care, held no views on this issue, or were simply lazy to take the steps.

Now this translates to very real costs and loss, and not something that ought to be simply dismissed as needing more education, or working to change mindsets.. Granted all these things need to be done, but in the meantime a stopgap needs to be found to protect the people who are suffering the weight of apathy and indifference. fmyks solution of needing more education and changing hearts and minds works in theory, but can one implement this without incurring many deaths before it is finally achieved? In an idea society everybody has the conscience to make an educated and informed decision on this issue but are we there yet? Until we are there how many will die?

More importantly, are these deaths needless casualties? fmyk has consistently asserted in her arguments that causalities are justified not from any real justification but simply that these deaths do not matter- in other words, she is pretty much saying that we should not worry about the deaths from organ failure while we go about changing our society. But by all indications this is not only fallacious but also greatly disturbing from a person who values human rights so much.

The reality is this: a lot of people who are potential donors from the circumstances of their demise end up not donating not because they are personally opposed to donation or want to preserve their body (like fmyk because she has respect for nature and its ways), but simply because they have no opinions about this issue (ie. they go its okay or not if you take my organs, I dont really care because Im dead), or worse, because they are simply lazy to decide on it, it being a non necessary choice In which case how many people suffering from organ failure die needless or preventable deaths because people who had no opinion in the matter pro or con (in other words saying do anything you want) had wasted their organs on death? Somehow these needless deaths of mothers, fathers, sons and daughters dying is unimportant to fmyk because in as far she is concerned with rights and choice even with those who have decided to remove themselves from making any choice or having any rights in the matter.

I do not find his/her/its position tenable in fact her position is a lot akin to high ended idealism with little grasp on reality. The reality is that a lot of organs have been wasted in the past and a lot of people have died needless deaths not from any opposition to donation but sheer indifference.

How to go about it. The only merit that fmyk has is that at least she manages to propose a solution, if but a weak one (not surprisingly given his/her/its borderline regard for human life) and that is education and working to change our society by taking the proper way out to transform it to the way it should be. However he/she/it pretty much stops there because as far as he/she/its concerned, her rights are protected and the rest is irrelevant to his/her/its consideration (ironically he/she/it is perhaps in need of the very education he/she/it proposes)

While we are working towards this, people will still die and these are not casualties in the war against ignorance and apathy we should ignore or threat as unimportant like fmyk. In fact each of these deaths are a tragedy, and if one had a way to go protect them ethically would not one take it?

The current system of auto-opt in is certainly flawed as and in the way it has been implemented. However fmyk stumbles in asserting that auto-opt in automatically means SOLVENT GREEN that was an automatic, and automatically flawed assumption on her part. She is correct in saying that it is currently sneaky, murky and fishy but most of what she says following that is pretty much nonsense, not to mention just as inhumane as the system she often criticizes.

What could be really changed? Lets see:

1. Auto opt in is currently the way to go but not as a solution to our problem of apathy but as a SAFETY NET to protect the rights of those who would suffer the weight of apathy in our society. The problem now is that our government has become lazy and sloppy about making it that way.

How can it be a safety net? By making by and by that our society at large is well informed on the auto-opt in procedure. This means that each and every Singaporean is well aware of the system and what to do if they want to opt out. Make sure everyone is aware of the system and the rules, allow those who want out to opt out, and those who are want in, or dont really care about if they are in or out to remain in. This means that deaths from otherwise wasted organs will be virtually eliminated.

2. Make sure there are proper checks and measures in place to prevent unlawful harvesting of organs. Improve transparency in the system and implement serious consequences for any breach of confidence when it comes to this issue.

All these things are of course a stopgap, but an important stopgap to have if we consider what is at stake here.

3. And of course, in the long term educating and working to change public opinion on this issue.

Almost anything would be better then fmyks obsessive and illogical regard for some particular rights over all others.

fymk SG

Yes we all face death one day. It's confronting . Sure let's save the world. Forget the rights of others. Forget what they believe in . Just extract the organs from everyone regardless of religion or race for the greater good according to your arguments on humanity . How about that for humanity?

Well that's too bad ,according to one forumner's reply, if the deceased or family did have the thought of body desecration as a sure way to hell !

Yes people are dying out there. From war, from famine, from disease, from crime. More so from poverty and malnutrition than organ failure. Technically going by all the arguments here in logic or illogic as you would call it , so should we take all the money from the rich and give to the poor in Africa now? Look there are people dying from famine and war in Africa right now!

Playing a guilt game on others who do not agree or questioning their humanity is certainly the worse way to go about things.

I have my own personal beliefs about how certain things should be played out in life and how those lists are ran. I also have my own right to my spiritual thoughts on organ donation. Tough if you cannot agree with me or cannot convince me otherwise. Using an emotional reason such as " You are so heartless because you don't give your organs" don't really work too well with me especially when I feel that donors ought to give consent not be opted in automatically.

I did offer up an idea of signing people up when they are making their IC or driver's licence. There will be a wide catchment area there and could be implemented much easily . They have to make the decision before the cards are issued. Won't it be better?

But no , there seem to be a focus on questioning my humanity which I find rather disturbing.

fymk SG

The above comment comes from a forumner who also have the same argument of non-donors being selfish and automatic opt in suppporter .

And you fellas want to question my humanity or alleged heartlessness ? I find that absolutely laughable.

Well, it is kind of interesting to know although he claims to support lives through organ donorship , he also tends to curse a person with such ridiculous severity just because that person is in direct conflict with him on certain aspects of the thread.

As for those who strongly said that I am heartless because I argue on the premise of supporting individual rights first: if you cannot be bothered opting in prior to the scheme citing lack of time while knowing the real issues at heart, who are you to call me heartless or imply that I am inhumane in the first place?

You are just no better than what you make me out to be. Citing lack of time or cannot be bothered signing up is not a justification of your so called self righteous humanitarian cause towards an automatic opt in system to gain organ donations.

All you can see is the 'waste of organs' . Among all reasons, I also refused to be treated like a piece of machinery to be cannibalised through the opt in system - I would have much prefered it if I was treated with some respect to what I might have done with my body by giving me some knowledge and benefit of organ donation, then the coin could probably have flipped the other way - do you have an issue with my view on that?

I don't mind a voluntary opt in system where the organ status is stated on your IC or driver's licence. Singapore is well placed to do that with all our NRIC cards or driver licence cards.

At least I got my own reasons as nonsensical as it sounds to some of you but it is quite valid to me. At least I have discussed it with my family and bothered to sign out of the system rather than to run my family through the painful task of deciding last minute in my sudden demise of what to do with me.

At least for sure, I know I am no hypocrite.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Need I point out to you who's the emotional one here?

In an ideal world, yes, everybody would realize and understand that being a donor is a good thing and that everyone should do it. However we are not yet (if we shall ever be) in that kind of world.

But more importantly, it follows if it we should be working towards such a world. You seem to be perfectly happy with your rights as long as life does not deal you a crappy hand. In other words, yes you have rights... but one wonders really what you are using this ability to choose for.

Yes people are dying out there. From war, from famine, from disease, from crime. More so from poverty and malnutrition than organ failure. Technically going by all the arguments here in logic or illogic as you would call it , so should we take all the money from the rich and give to the poor in Africa now? Look there are people dying from famine and war in Africa right now!

What it means is that yes, if we realize what is the right thing to do, we would be doing whatever we can to reduce poverty, disease, war and what have you not.

Is not the rich-poor divide caused by selfishness? The difference is that I intend to find a pratical solution within our means to help out the best we can... you seem to think since this is the way of things that we shouldn't entertain any thoughts that it should be any other way.

Indeed if all the wealth of the rich nations could be pratically distributed without destroying much of the world infrastructure... would not this be the right thing to do? Please look at the Jewish Jubilee for an understanding of how such a thing has been traditionally carried out.

Playing a guilt game on others who do not agree or questioning their humanity is certainly the worse way to go about things.

I have my own personal beliefs about how certain things should be played out in life and how those lists are ran. I also have my own right to my spiritual thoughts on organ donation. Tough if you cannot agree with me or cannot convince me otherwise. Using an emotional reason such as " You are so heartless because you don't give your organs" don't really work too well with me especially when I feel that donors ought to give consent not be opted in automatically.

Why do you always see this as a guilt game? Unless on some level you know that you are making an inherently selfish choice and am attempting to deny it?

People with proper convictions will never see how much attempts to direct them at the wrongness of their actions as a guilt trip. They know what is right and what is wrong.

Unfortunately the very fact you seem to think of the fact that people highlight your actions as inherently selfish as a "guilt" trip is rather telling that you don't really even fully understand (or prehaps don't want to understand) your own position because if you faced the naked reality of it, you indeed would feel guilty.

Sadly it is hard to deny that your actions will have serious consequences on other people... worse still that there is a means of rectifying this. Basically speaking, people are pointing out the natural conclusion of your actions, which you have studiously tried to deny and call a "guilt trip."

But the real question is: who is the quilty one here? who is the one trying not to see?

But no , there seem to be a focus on questioning my humanity which I find rather disturbing.

If you seek to question the humanity of others by your constant harping of SOLVENT GREEN and humans as livestock... please do not be surprised if others examine your position for any sign of self-contradiction... of which plenty is found.

And yes, going by much of what you said so far... one tends to wonder if your very humanity cannot be found to be suspect. There are two types of people who insist on rights- those that believe that rights are a good thing for people to have and those which are merely selfish. Which one are you?

As and so far I have no issue with consent- the main and most tragic thing is wastage from uncertainty. If we could create any system that removes all uncertainty in any way I am all for it. The current system is not perfect and there are many things I disagree with... unfortunately your proposed solutions puts the bomb on the wrong side of the wall when it comes to the uncertain times.

When all else fails and all is uncertain, one ought to act in interest of the living and not the dead... unless the dead have explictly made this cause of actions to be taken after death apparent.

Indeed what are your personal convictions for opting out? Do you dare have them examined here or prehaps you have realized that they are irrational and you can't really justify them beyond an arbitary choice to listen to your own animal nature?

But if it is an irrational choice coming from your animal nature... what human rights can you really demand from it? Any way we look at it, it is an abuse of the right you are given, not the use of it. By the very use of the word "right", you have assumed that we ought to act like human beings with reason and not like animals. If you are paranoid or irrational, what right do you have to make your choice? It is just by a loophole of law and goodwill that soceity allows your mindset to prevail.

Just food for thought. It would be good for you to provide a proper reason for you opting out beyond a gravely inadequate: "it is my right and I don't have to feel guilty about it."

You are just no better than what you make me out to be. Citing lack of time or cannot be bothered signing up is not a justification of your so called humanitarian drive towards an automatic opt in system to gain organ donations.

Please don't put your foot into your mouth. If you examine my post with even the most basic of reading skills surely you must have caught onto the fact that I am pointing out indifference and laziness in this affair is a social problem with real costs to which needs a proper safety to those who will pay the ultimate price for it? Did I say that this behaviour ought to contuine? In our case what is the humananitarian thing to do? Be narrowly focused on your little fight for rights? You miss the forrest for the trees, my dear.

If a house is on fire you save your most important things first before you try to put out the fire. In your case, you seem to think that unless we can come up with the best way to put out the fire, nothing's worth saving for now.

At least for sure, I know I am no hypocrite.

You would be surely, and sadly deluded, given your insistence on the right to choice but yet choosing to avoid the responsibility of choice.

I do not mean to tear your arguments to shreds... but given the general quality of your justifications and half-hearted counterarguments... can one help but do so?

« Previous Page Next Page »