At present we have to carry a card or be on the national register to let doctors know that in the event of our death we wish our organs to be used for transplant. Although this in no way guarantees that they will be used if our relatives say otherwise.

There is a move in parliament for it to be assumed that we do consent for organ donation unless we have opted out by registering somewhere or other.

I have mixed feelings on this one. They say that this will massively increase the organs available. Will this be because we genuinely want to donate or will it be a case of people forgetting to opt out as they at the moment forget to opt in?

What do you alll think?

Who cares what your organs will be used for? Whether you believe in life after death or not, surely the most caring thing to do is to donate organs to research/transplantation facilities. I can't stand people who think it would be too 'weird'. you'll be bloody dead! Who cares what they take/use it for!

Wouldn't it be better to opt in to any such scheme as opposed to opting out. If someone wanted to donate their organs then they would express their wish to do so, but having to rely on someone forgetting to opt out of a donation scheme just to gain a few body parts is a bit devious. I personally wouldn't have a problem with this either way cos when I'm gone I would want my organs to be put to good use by saving a life or two.

Yeah, I think you should have to opt out rather than opt in as it were.
I've never seen the need to hang on to your organs after death. Thats my opinion obviously.. in fact I'm working on preserving mine right now. I feel several of my organs may be of use to curious students rather than poorly folks but hey, if you can use it, do it.

Definatly we need an out out rather than opt in. If anyone feels that strongly about not donating their organs I think their unlikly to forget to opt out.

I'd go for opt-in.

The main reason being that I'm selfish, I guess. I'd prefer to have some say in who my spare parts went to help - for example, if my liver was deemed suitable for transplant to someone I'd prefer it NOT to go to someone who's got to the point of requiring a 'spare' because they've drunk themselves stupid.

Similarly, I'd prefer my heart to go to someone who's at least tried to lead a healthy life and hasn't gotten to final stage cardiac failure through lifestyle choices.

I know this makes me a selfish so and so, a health fascist and such but I'd want to make those conditions and as things stand you can't.

For many years I was a blood donor and because of my blood group was also a plasma and platelet donor. I stopped there when I fell ill in the mid 1990s and couldn't continue. I have no problems about where by blood and platelets went, but for the rest of me, sorry!

Joe

I belive in Belgium thay have opt out. the result is that many lives are saved every year. This is definately a good thing. certainly any of you are welcome to my body parts, as long as I've finished with them. you might not necessarily want my liver though, it is a bit lived-in...

The concern I have, is how easy will it be to get an opt-out card, and when you snuff it, will doctors go to any great length to look for the card if finding it means they won't have access to your organs?

I think I feel safer with the opt-in scheme, because I don't really want to donate my organs to anyone else after I die.

Sidla, why don't you want to donate any organs? From other posts I know you are a Christian. Isn't this just an act of charity, helping someone less fortunate than yourself?

Actually, they would not really be less fortunate, if you were dead and they were alive. But you get my point. And as noseyrosie says, even if you believe in life after death, you certainly won't have any need of a spleen in heaven.

I don't really know. I just believe that my organs are my own, I was born with them, and they were intended for me and nobody else. If I die, I want the rest of my body to die with me, because that is the way nature intends it.

Obviously, organ donation wasn't an issue in Jesus' day, so I don't know what his opinion on the matter would be.

Although having said this, I have to think about the possibility that I may one day need a donated organ. Would I accept it? I will go away and think some more....

Obviously, organ donation wasn't an issue in Jesus' day, so I don't know what his opinion on the matter would be.

Without seeming or wanting to have a go at you,
There were a large number of moral questions that were not an issue in Jesus' day, leaving Christians to make their minds up. The things that springs immediately to mind is the Jehovahs Witnesses prohibiting blood transfusion, on the grounds that it was prohibited (more or less) in Leviticus somewhere. Recently, the US JH's changed their mind on this, prompting angry complaints from people who allowed their loved ones to die, thinking that they were doing God's will.

I think that if I couldn't tell someone to their face 'I'm sorry, I could help you but I won't, and now you're going to die', then it would be a bit off to do the some thing in death.

Without wanting to start a religeous argument.. I'm not an expert but wouldn't God/Jesus want us to help our fellow man/woman? Just interested, not looking for a war of words or owt.

Yeah, I appreciate that.

I think if I needed a replacement organ, I probably would accept it. This will probably come across as very selfish, however, I would accept safe in the knowledge that the donor had willingly allowed it. That is why think the opt-in scheme is safer. I wouldn't want to recieve the organ of an apathetic person, who has not really given organ donation much thought.

As for wether I would donate my organs, my opinion may change. As Joe said above, I wouldn't want my organs going to an immoral person, like the poor chap who gave George Best his new liver.

Without wanting to start a religeous argument.. I'm not an expert but wouldn't God/Jesus want us to help our fellow man/woman? Just interested, not looking for a war of words or owt.

Yes, he would. Most Christian denominations support organ donorship, for that reason. It's down to the individual I guess but unless you are a Jehovah's Witness or something like that, there's no religious reason why you can't donate.

:)

Good point about George Best. I suppose all the doctors could do is get him to promise to lay off the booze. And I suppose he promised to, but it would be unfair to remove someone from an organ transplant list because you didn't believe their promises. Perhaps they made the wrong decision in this case.

The whole point of the scheme is that you have absolutely no say about where your organs go. The clinical decisions are made by the doctors based on who is at the top of the list (and therefore needs it most), and whose tissue will most readily accept it. I seem to remember a few years ago there was a family of racists who only wanted their relatives organs to be used in white people. The doctors quite rightly declined, and told them to shove it. I would hate to be involved in any kind of vetting procedure, assessing whose lifestyle was healthy, and whose was not. Most people would embrace a second chance to have a go at life, and not wreck it all again, as Best has done.

maybe I should declare an interest. I recently had a kidney fail, and I'm waiting for it to be removed. I don't expect this to happen any time soon, but thats OK with me. The docs say I can continue as normal on the one kidney, but can't rule out further problems when I'm in my 50's or 60's. I get first dibs on my little brothers kidney (he did volunteer, honestly). There are generous people who donate non-lethal things like kidneys, bone marrow and eggs, but I'd rather have something hopefully compatible lined up, just in case...

So really it can still just be personal choice.

If they were to send out a card to everyone on which you made it clear whether you wanted to donate or not, it would kill 2 birds with one stone. Anyone not carrying one would have to be assumed to not want to donate.. easy.

Originally posted by Wavey
So really it can still just be personal choice.

If they were to send out a card to everyone on which you made it clear whether you wanted to donate or not, it would kill 2 birds with one stone. Anyone not carrying one would have to be assumed to not want to donate.. easy.

Sensible idea that... Shame the current powers that be don't "do" sensible :loopy:

I personally think it would be wrong to force people to carry a card if they don't want to donate their organs.

Having said that, I can see why people are keen on that idea, because a lot of people who would theoretically like to donate their organs after they die simply cannot be bothered to go to the trouble of filling in a form/card to say so!

That reminds me, I must pick up a form and fill it in this week!!!

Yeah, like I said, anyone not carrying one would be assumed not to want to.

Its a bit of a scatter gun approach but if a more people's organs suddenly become available it can't be a bad thing can it?

OK......

We live with a cash-strapped health care system but we have a great liking for 'technical' fixes. For example, people give generously to buy some sort of body scanner - MRI, SQUID, whatever - but then the hospital has to find the staff and maintenance costs for the following umpteen years to keep it running and working.

I'm not a medic, but I would think that of the transplants that are carried out with a reasonable amount of success - kidney, liver and heart - kidney is probably the easiest, is non-fatal for the donor and usually the least likely to de dependent upon lifestyle issues. Liver and heart are complex operations that involve the death of another person to make them possible. And the prognosis of recipients is probably better for kidney recipients than for liver or heart recipients in many cases.

So....why not focus more of the health care spend on prevention and lifestyle education, early catching of conditions before they get too far gone to treat, etc. rather than high tech solutions that allow the medical profession to work short term miracles at a high economic cost?

If you catch someone with poor eating habits, who does no excercise and smokes like a chimney early enough and deliberately set out to educate them, then you might remove the need for them to have cardiac bypasses and heart transplants later in life.

The money you could save like this, and the spare organs, could then go to people who are too far gone with disease or damage to save them in any other way.

Originally posted by Sidla
I think if I needed a replacement organ, I probably would accept it. This will probably come across as very selfish, however, I would accept safe in the knowledge that the donor had willingly allowed it. That is why think the opt-in scheme is safer. I wouldn't want to recieve the organ of an apathetic person, who has not really given organ donation much thought.


Hi Sidla, i've got 2 queries on your post. First you say that you wouldn't want to receive an organ from an apathetic person. If you, or your child were at death's door, would you really care who donated the organ? I know I wouldn't.

Second, you say you probably would accept a donated organ - you'd be lucky if you did because there is a shortage of organs. The opt out scheme is an attempt to remedy that, without forcing anyone who objects to organ dontation from having to take part.

By the way, you don't have to carry a card to be a donor. There is a register and once you have signed up your details will be checked against it, should the worst happen. There are more details here... http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/how_to_become_a_donor/how_to_become_a_donor.jsp

I'm all for an Opt-out system.

Can any of you seriously think that you think that you have the right to decide whether someone lives or dies? By not giving your organs to those who need them (when you no longer do, i might add) that is what you are choosing to do.

You are letting someone else die. No matter what you might do to argue your point, you cannot deny that by not donating organs this is what you are doing.

I carry my card, anybody can have anything they want, why should I care? I'm a piece of inert organic matter by that point. Perhaps some of you consider me naive for thinking in such simple terms, but to me, there is no argument about organ donation. I do not have the right to stop someone else from living, this is classed as Murder (because you are choosing to do this also) in my book.

Wilf

Thought about this all day and still haven't been able to answer my own question.

One thought that crossed my mind was can we trust the medics to act in our best interests if they know that they have perhaps a dozen or more potential transplants before their very eyes. If I am seriously ill in hospital, the way things stand I assume that the medics would do all they could to save me(not knowing whether I was a donor or not). On the other hand if I had not opted out and this was stated on my medical records would the temptation be to let me go and save multiple lives?

Also some treatments and drugs may well render an organ unsuitable for transplant so would such treatments be witheld if there wasn't a high chance of success so as not to ruin the transplant potential?

I would like to take credit for this suggestion as I think it is the most sensible to date, but I can't because I heard it elsewhere.

When you register with a doctor you should be asked if you want to donate your organs. Obviously, this would not apply to children and would still be up to the parents to decide. Your decision would then be on a database that doctors could access.

Perhaps, doctors could send out a form to all the patients currently on their register asking about donation. Not everyone would reply but perhaps it would help clarify things for alot of people.

Originally posted by Mo
One thought that crossed my mind was can we trust the medics to act in our best interests if they know that they have perhaps a dozen or more potential transplants before their very eyes. If I am seriously ill in hospital, the way things stand I assume that the medics would do all they could to save me(not knowing whether I was a donor or not). On the other hand if I had not opted out and this was stated on my medical records would the temptation be to let me go and save multiple lives?

That's a bit insulting towards doctors - they would first and formost try and save your life. That's about it.


Originally posted by Sidla
Obviously, organ donation wasn't an issue in Jesus' day, so I don't know what his opinion on the matter would be.

I can't remember exactly where in the Bible (not a Christian after all), but when Jesus was asked 'what is the most important commandment?' he said 'to love God and to love your fellow man.', so surely reason dictates that you should try and help someone else in their time of need when you have no need for something. After all, two of the Cardinal Virtues are Justice and Fortitude, which surely cover this matter?


Edit: Crisis averted ;)

Originally posted by noseyrosie
That's a bit insulting towards doctors - they would first and formost try and save your life. That's about it.


I can't remember exactly where in the Bible (not a Christian after all), but when Jesus was asked 'what is the most important commandment?' he said 'to love God and to love your fellow man.', so surely reason dictates that you should try and help someone else in their time of need when you have no need for something. After all, two of the Cardinal Virtues are Justice and Fortitude, which surely cover this matter?

How can you be so sure about that noseyrosie? Everday doctors have to make choices between patients as funds are finite. I would love a medic to come on here and tell me that such choices are NOT made especially with reference to older people but I am sure that they are.

By the way, you have attributed your last quote to me and I never said that gov :D

if I'm dead, I don't mind.
But only if I'm definately dead!

Nah i think its discusting you should have to opt out of having your organs donated opting in by choice is fine but its as iv the goverment have starting controll over your own body. My body is my body and thats that if i want to opt in i will but personally i think ill be opting out!!!!!

How about a pension in return for your organs?

Once you're dead, your organs are of no use to you at all - they'll either be eaten by the worms or burned.

Originally posted by JoePritchard
The main reason being that I'm selfish, I guess. I'd prefer to have some say in who my spare parts went to help - for example, if my liver was deemed suitable for transplant to someone I'd prefer it NOT to go to someone who's got to the point of requiring a 'spare' because they've drunk themselves stupid.

Even with an 'opt-in' system, you don't have any say over who your organs go to. As far as I am aware, donors are anonymous.

So....why not focus more of the health care spend on prevention and lifestyle education, early catching of conditions before they get too far gone to treat, etc. rather than high tech solutions that allow the medical profession to work short term miracles at a high economic cost?

Because no matter how much you spend on educating people about their health, Joe Public will always ignore the warnings until it becomes too late, thinking 'it will never happen to me'! And they won't visit the doctor until it becomes debilitating, at which point we need the high tech solutions.

Originally posted by Mo
One thought that crossed my mind was can we trust the medics to act in our best interests if they know that they have perhaps a dozen or more potential transplants before their very eyes. If I am seriously ill in hospital, the way things stand I assume that the medics would do all they could to save me(not knowing whether I was a donor or not). On the other hand if I had not opted out and this was stated on my medical records would the temptation be to let me go and save multiple lives?

Doctors have to take the Hippocratic Oath and whilst I am not a doctor, I find that comment rather insulting as well. Of course choices have to be made, just as they do in every walk of life; unfortunately the ones doctors have to make involve human life and are therefore much the harder for that. Individual doctors don't make the decisions as to whether to treat or not - I think that they have to confer with other colleagues.

I'm definitely for opt out.

Originally posted by Smiler
Hi Sidla, i've got 2 queries on your post. First you say that you wouldn't want to receive an organ from an apathetic person. If you, or your child were at death's door, would you really care who donated the organ? I know I wouldn't.
Yes, of course I would care. I wouldn't want to recieve the organ from someone who, if given thought to the idea, wouldn't want to give organs. It's immoral.

Originally posted by Smiler
Second, you say you probably would accept a donated organ - you'd be lucky if you did because there is a shortage of organs. The opt out scheme is an attempt to remedy that, without forcing anyone who objects to organ dontation from having to take part.
But as I've said, this means that the organs of apathetic people are available. I don't believe that's right. I think that at the very least, they should force everyone to carry a card, as has already been suggested, which makes sure that everyone gives at least a moments thought to the idea.

Originally posted by Wavey
So really it can still just be personal choice.

If they were to send out a card to everyone on which you made it clear whether you wanted to donate or not, it would kill 2 birds with one stone. Anyone not carrying one would have to be assumed to not want to donate.. easy.

it is always good to see that people care, personally I love it, basic requirement.

Our government is so whamsy pamsy about real issues though, forget any kind of practical solution to a very real problem!!

If another country ****** us off, we bomb them, if a war goes on that does not affect, we neglect to see it, if real crime goes off on our door step, so what. We are so `PC` anyway. The upholders of (F)law are chained and fettered, somewhat restricted and short numbered..doh.. it does not make money to catch criminals (Her Majesties Services are exploding) unless they are driving a little faster than they are told to by our demotastic system.

I could but will not rant anymore here...

Originally posted by Sidla
Yes, of course I would care. I wouldn't want to recieve the organ from someone who, if given thought to the idea, wouldn't want to give organs. It's immoral.

I'm taken aback by your answer. If me or one of mine needed a transplant, I wouldn't have any qualms about who the donor was or why they donated it. I don't agree that it would be immoral either but, hey, each to their own.

You don't think cutting someone's body up without their consent is immoral?

Originally posted by Sidla
You don't think cutting someone's body up without their consent is immoral?

If they're alive yes, if not, it's not an issue.

Originally posted by Smiler


By the way, you don't have to carry a card to be a donor. There is a register and once you have signed up your details will be checked against it, should the worst happen. There are more details here... http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/how_to_become_a_donor/how_to_become_a_donor.jsp

On that note I've just done my bit by registering. :)

On the question of "what would jesus do?" Sidla, didnt he share his loaves and fish with the masses? Of course it's not the same thing, but the intention is no different. If you possess something that can help others, and you are able to offer it, then do it.

I am not a christian, but I am on the donor regsiter, and i couldnt give a damn who my organs go to. Be they christian, muslim, black, white, male, female, old or young. If I'm dead, I dont need this body or anything in it any more, so why take away the one tiny ray of hope some other family may have of keeping a loved one alive to laugh and cry and play and live life just as I did when I was alive?

I wholeheartedly agree that it is a very personal decision whether or not to become an organ donor, but when you are just going to be burnt or buried after death anyway, your body and the organs in it being destroyed and rotting with you, what difference does it make whether they are all still intact or not? Really? You dont need that body any more, but you could continue kind deeds after death by donating organs to those who are still alive.

But if you DO NOT WANT your organs to be separated from your body after your death, then is it right that people should do it without your consent?

Some religions do not allow any form of removal of organs after death. In that case I suppose it would be immoral to remove any organs knowing their beliefs - as its likely they will have to be buried in accordance with their religion too.

ie: Islam dictates upon death the deceased is to be buried the same day if prior to dusk. (ASAP basically)

Originally posted by Sidla
But if you DO NOT WANT your organs to be separated from your body after your death, then is it right that people should do it without your consent?

Isn't that the point of an opt out scheme? It gives you the choice of specifying when you don't want your organs/body parts removing for whatever reason.

Yes Max, but what I'm saying is that if people havn't given any thought to the idea then they wouldn't have opted out. I don't think it's right that their organs should be used, because they have not had any say in it.

I agree with what you're saying Sidla, but unless someone has specifically stated they do not want their organs removing after death - like yourself for instance - then I don't see why doctors cannot remove them. After all, the young child hit by a speeding car at a crossing didn't ask to be run down and in need of serious surgery, but it still happened. Why not use the organs that haven't been marked as unavailable to save that child?

But yes, if someone definitely does not want to donate organs, then it should be their right to refuse, and not have to give a reason. Otherwise, the organ donation system could possibly be open to abuse.

But I think it would be morally questionable to remove peoples organs without their consent. That is why I think everyone should be told to make a decision either way, and carry a card indicating their decision. This would have the desired effect of increasing the amounts of donors, and it was also eliminate all morality objections.

Also, say someone doesn't want to donate their organs, but doesn't know where to get a card from?

I find it morally wrong that people don't express their desire to donate body parts after death. The solution, imo, would be to go for the opt out legislation. I have problems dealing with people who would opt out but I still think they should be given the choice as that's what democracy is all about.

Sorry Sid, I don't think we'll ever agree on this one.

Originally posted by Sidla
But I think it would be morally questionable to remove peoples organs without their consent. That is why I think everyone should be told to make a decision either way, and carry a card indicating their decision. This would have the desired effect of increasing the amounts of donors, and it was also eliminate all morality objections.

Also, say someone doesn't want to donate their organs, but doesn't know where to get a card from?

If someone felt that strongly about it, wouldn't they take the time to find out how to opt out?

I hear your point about the moral questionability of removing organs without someone's expressed consent. However, I think it is more immoral to let people who need transplants die because of lack of awareness about or interest in organ donation. Its a moral dilemma but to my mind saving a life is a greater good than protecting people who choose not to decide what should happen after their death.

But what if people didn't know how to opt out, or hadn't really thought too much about it?? I don't seem to be getting through to you.

Max, I agree with what you're saying, I too think it's wrong that people don't express their desires to opt in. My concern is that people who do not give the idea any thought will end up donating wether they like it or not.

Smiler, all I'm saying is that the government sould increase awareness to the situation, and if they did, i'm sure they would find more donors. I just think that if people don't give any thought to the matter then their organs should not be available.

Originally posted by Sidla
But what if people didn't know how to opt out, or hadn't really thought too much about it?? I don't seem to be getting through to you.



You are getting thriugh perfectly well Sidla, but like myself, other people are perfectly justified to disagree with you.

Originally posted by Sidla
My concern is that people who do not give the idea any thought will end up donating wether they like it or not.


A very valid concern I'm sure but if they've not given the matter any thought then they must, by default, not care too much about the issue. The same argument about education holds for either opt in or opt out, awareness should be taught as part of citizenship classes.

Originally posted by Smiler
If someone felt that strongly about it, wouldn't they take the time to find out how to opt out?
I

And by the same token if somebody felt strongly about wanting to donate organs wouldn't they take the time to opt in?

what ever happent to the Doner section on driving licences?
i remember my provisional licence having it, and because it was there i compleated the form to become a doner.
and some years ago i remember some credit card sized doner cards (red/white writing) that you could carry in your wallet wherever you go. are they still available?
and if they are available then why dont they post them to homes accross the country instead of just relying on people picking one up from the counter when they are in the doctors/chemist or post office ect , when people are ill and need to see a docs/chemist, postoffice, they are there for a reason and the last thing on their mind is "who0 look a doner card, ill fill one in"

And by the same token if somebody felt strongly about wanting to donate organs wouldn't they take the time to opt in?

the problem is no one feels 'Strongy' about giving their organs even though the majority of people say
"they can take what they want when im dead, i aint gonna be needing the organs anymore and if they can be used to save someones live or give someone a better life then go for it"
there is very few that have actually gone to the effort to fill out a Doner form.
where as the people who dont feel they would want to donate their organs, would feel 'Strongly' enough about it to actually fill out the doner form to 'opt out'.

i fit the first discription as i dont care what happens to my carcus when im gone.
but i havent had enough passion about the subject to go out and fill the form in.
neither have i spoke to my family about the subject, to see what their thoughts would be if i was to be used for spares, i do feel they have a right to know.

As per Mo, my problem with the opt out argument is that if organ donation was such a high priority to people then they would have opted in already.

As per Mo, my problem with the opt out argument is that if organ donation was such a high priority to people then they would have opted in already.

Not necessarily. People tend be be less than keen to contemplate their untimely death. And few families tend to talk about it. people often just ignore it until its too late, much like tax returns.

Originally posted by max
A very valid concern I'm sure but if they've not given the matter any thought then they must, by default, not care too much about the issue. The same argument about education holds for either opt in or opt out, awareness should be taught as part of citizenship classes.
But then my second point becomes the issue. What if someone doesn't know how, or is unable, to opt out?

Surely it's safer for everyone to be forced into making a decision, then there can be no morality issues...?

Originally posted by Sidla
Smiler, all I'm saying is that the government sould increase awareness to the situation, and if they did, i'm sure they would find more donors. I just think that if people don't give any thought to the matter then their organs should not be available.

We'll have to agree to disagree onthe point in your last sentence.

But if you DO NOT WANT your organs to be separated from your body after your death, then is it right that people should do it without your consent?

no its not, what right have people over my body? i think its ridiculous that people think its ok to just cut up my body if i dont have a card, presume that i would have been fine with it. i havent decided either way but i am certain that imo that is completely wrong. If my child was in serious need, i wouldnt take someones if i didnt know they were ok with it before they died. i see it as immoral too, obviously im not saying you shud all agree with me, just putting my point across and i can see all angles.

Originally posted by Smiler
We'll have to agree to disagree onthe point in your last sentence.
I hate to get spiritual, but I suppose it comes down to the afterlife. If you live after your death and you see your body being cut up without your consent, would you be happy about it?

Originally posted by Nu_Skillz

the problem is no one feels 'Strongy' about giving their organs even though the majority of people say
"they can take what they want when im dead, i aint gonna be needing the organs anymore and if they can be used to save someones live or give someone a better life then go for it"
there is very few that have actually gone to the effort to fill out a Doner form.

A very good point.

In fact it inspired me to add myself to the NHS organ donation register, and I just did so.

It's easy and quick (less than 5 minutes) and can be done here: https://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/how_to_become_a_donor/how_to_become_a_donor.jsp

Originally posted by Sidla
I hate to get spiritual, but I suppose it comes down to the afterlife. If you live after your death and you see your body being cut up without your consent, would you be happy about it?

Well you would be in a world of sh*t if you had been eaten by pack of wild animals.

I think I prefer a system where you opt in if you want to donate not out.

opt in is fine...but more publicity is needed.

For instance, the post I quoted earlier sums it up. I've always been of the mind that people can do what they want with me when I'm dead. But I lost my donor card years ago and never did anything about it until this thread.

If I'd died today and not left any instructions to use me for spare parts, and that had meant that someone waiting for an urgent transplant had died because of my not carrying a card or being registered, then what a shame that would have been :(

In this day and age if you want to opt in there should be no reason why it can't be logged on a system somewhere so then the onus would be on someone to carry out a check.

Originally posted by Sidla
I hate to get spiritual, but I suppose it comes down to the afterlife. If you live after your death and you see your body being cut up without your consent, would you be happy about it?

Interestin question. I'm an atheist so I think we ae wormfood once we die. Perhaps that is one reason why I have a different view than you.

If I'm wrong and there is an afterlife, I guess I won't need my body so I don't think I'd care.