Using your analogy if you choose to be buried would it be right for your local council to say the graveyard is getting full let's cremate them instead of opening another cemetery?
.
England to consider optout organ donation
- Thread starter Chippy_Tea
- Start date
Help Support The Homebrew Forum:
Using your analogy if you choose to be buried would it be right for your local council to say the graveyard is getting full let's cremate them instead of opening another cemetery?
.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2017
- Messages
- 2,814
- Reaction score
- 1,040
How about no more burial at all? Only taking up space. Incinerate everything and use the ashes for compost.
AdeDunn
Member
When I am dead, "they" can do whatever they like with my body, it'll just be meat, I'll be gone and not needing it any more. No different to a side of beef, a pork chop or a chicken breast. Once we have died and departed there is no longer any difference. Whatever name you give it, your mind, your soul, your spirit, this is what makes you you, and when you die this isn't present in your meat suit any more.
Anything that can be used to save or improve lives, they're welcome to. The rest, burn it, preserve it as a specimen, whatever. Hugely preferable to the robbing *&^%$'s who run the funeral services ripping off my offspring just to dispose of my vacated meat suit.
It's the living who matter, not the dead.
Anything that can be used to save or improve lives, they're welcome to. The rest, burn it, preserve it as a specimen, whatever. Hugely preferable to the robbing *&^%$'s who run the funeral services ripping off my offspring just to dispose of my vacated meat suit.
It's the living who matter, not the dead.
You appear to have dodged the question, has the government the right to decide what happens to your body after death or is that right yours?
.
Absolutely - but it would actually be much more sensible to manage the issue with a cost differential by making burial available at 20 or 30 times the price of cremation to give families and the dying the illusion of choice.
My "You appear to have dodged the question" post was aimed at GerritT but as you have answered -
So you think only the well off should have the choice to be buried (at today's prices that would be ã80,000)
.
Linalmeemow
Landlord.
This is veering way off topic - the organ donation issue is NOT that the government gets to do what it likes with your body, you have the choice to opt out if you feel strongly enough about it and keep all your useful offal to be burned or buried with your bones. As others have discussed though, I'm of the opinion that if you opt out you should be refused the option of having a transplant should you need one.
For the record I'm a donor card holder.
Godsdog
Landlord.
with kids and under 18s exempt of course Elvis:thumb:
What I was saying is that it is perfectly reasonable to use artificial cost differentials to control peoples behaviour and access to limited resources.
In this instance, yes, if there are a very limited number of grave sites available and you don't want to allocate more greenfield land for the purpose of burial of the dead then yes, I absolutely think that it's acceptable to limit access to the limited burial resource through price control.
Price is always proportionate to availability whether it's metals like gold or foods like caviar..
Presumably you are okay with only the "well off" being able to drive new Rolls Royces, live in big detached houses overlooking lakes, regularly eat a Michelin starred restaurants and own luxury yachts.
Why should access to burial services be any different?
Linalmeemow
Landlord.
Fair comment!
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2017
- Messages
- 2,814
- Reaction score
- 1,040
Let the relatives decide. Make the organs part of the inheritance. And let the receptors pay for it. Why should it be free? No one in the transplantation business is doing it for free anyway, every step of the transplantation process makes money for someone.
ElvisIsBeer
Member
Why should it be free? Really?
Imagine if your kid was killed in a car crash and they had always said they did not want to donate organs (for whatever reason) and you were having a rough time financially so decided to sell a few bits, one day that is going to come back to haunt you.
.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2017
- Messages
- 2,814
- Reaction score
- 1,040
Yes, really. If it is SO VALUABLE that it is considered that per default everybody should be donor (or "donor" would be better, because 'donor' implies GIVING, while the default could become TAKEN), why should it be free? Everybody gets something out of it, why not the donor?
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2017
- Messages
- 2,814
- Reaction score
- 1,040
Nice "Tu quoque". Try better.
O.K - your organs should never have a monetary value put on them and families should never be put in the position where ambulance chasers put pressure on them to sell their families organs.
Linalmeemow
Landlord.
Human decency? To make sense of the tragic death of a family member by passing on the gift of life to some other person who'd die otherwise? Because it's the right thing to do.
Oneflewover
Landlord.
MarkBowie
Regular.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2016
- Messages
- 408
- Reaction score
- 139
This has moved on a bit since I last looked at it..... On all new driving licenses there is the opt in box. Make it an opt out box instead and that solves the problem. More 17 year olds get their license then not because of wanting it for ID. As for everyone else just advertise it a bit and then those that donââ¬â¢t want to help can opt out. Simple.
