kingweed wrote:It's one of those though, if people believe/feel that way, then who am I/we to judge them.
I can judge anyone, for anything. They may not like what I think, but that's their problem, not mine.
If someone thinks that their corpse being intact after they have died is more important than potentially saving someone's life, I judge them to be a terrible person.
Polito45 wrote:Yeah, there are arguments you can make, like the
fuckwits - people with religious convictions which don't allow for organ transplantation
I judge them to be terrible people as well. And if they think their "all loving" god would rather have them stuffed in the ground with all their bits rather than save another of his "children", then their god is a fucking asshole.
Ekona wrote:Bit controversial, that last bit Dan. Surely it goes against the whole ethos of the NHS?
I don't think so. Everyone would be allowed access to the organ pool so long as they met the medical criteria (which already exist and are in place), and had not made the decision to opt out of it. We already bar people from having organs on various grounds -- be that medical, or when they make poor decisions about their healthcare (e.g. people with alcoholic liver disease who continue to drink) -- in order to protect the extremely precious and limited number of donated organs. If people (~1000/year) are going to continue to die for want of an organ -- which they will for the foreseeable future -- then I'd rather it be someone who has made the selfish decision that they wouldn't want to help someone in their own situation than someone who has demonstrated that they would.
Interesting. It could be used as a tie-breaker, I guess, but carefully.