BlueStar Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 If we are coming up with hypothetical situations it could be some drunk who has destroyed his liver. But that still has no relation to the fact you can't give blood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 I know plenty of women who have had anal sex and have donated blood, however I don't know if they ask women or not. I was told since I'm gay you cannot donate, they never asked about anal sex, simply if I were gay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaggle64 Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 I know plenty of women who have had anal sex and have donated blood, however I don't know if they ask women or not. I was told since I'm gay you cannot donate, they never asked about anal sex, simply if I were gay. Why not approach your GP or another medical professional and ask them why this is the case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 Why not approach your GP or another medical professional and ask them why this is the case? Aye, might do. I don't understand why they don't. They screen all the blood anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaggle64 Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 When you do, come back and tell us what the word is. It does seem very odd that they would refuse blood just because the donor is gay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaggis Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 When you do, come back and tell us what the word is. It does seem very odd that they would refuse blood just because the donor is gay. Surely thats discrimination or whaver you call it? How can they refuse blood just because it comes from someone gay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 Going to ring up work (chemist), they have all the answers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackfox Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 Screening isn't 100% effective, and statistically gay people have a higher chance of acquiring an STI. Bloods clinics are desperate for blood and wouldn't turn down the chance of blood if they could help it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fish Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 I'm still waiting to see a decent argument against the idea of an opt-out system... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EEVILMURRAY Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 I'm still waiting to see a decent argument against the idea of an opt-out system... So the classic "I don't want to" won't work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 So the classic "I don't want to" won't work? Surely in that case you should be in favour of the opt out? The donor card at the moment overrules family wishes (although that wasn't always the case), I presume an 'opt out card' would be the same. If you die tomorrow your family could still say to a doctor "Oh, he didn't really talk about donating his organs, but I'm sure he would have wanted to." If you're on the opt out list then they don't have to ask and your family can't offer your organs for donation against your wishes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fish Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 So the classic "I don't want to" won't work? So your just selfish? You have no need for your organs once you're dead, you are in no state to miss them, and you don't have to go to any effort to donate them if the suggested system comes into play. I have seen no reason why you wouldn't want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flaight Posted July 15, 2007 Author Share Posted July 15, 2007 I'm still waiting to see a decent argument against the idea of an opt-out system...It's an emotional issue for many. Some people and medical profession don't get it and play guilt trip on others. How many brits are there, 60 million? Many will be unaware of opt-out system and forget to opt-out and they'll become the victims. So so cruel. Imagine a family who don't want their family members cut up to pieces and put together again - they will be told "sorry, your parent/child forgot to opt-out. Thanks anyway, here's his body. We've taken everything out of him. Thanks". And get their loved one's corpse all stitched up like Frankenstein. How is it a justice to force an emotional turmoil? It's bad enough already losing a loved one. At least with a donar card there is much less sense of being forced into it. If you want to donate, ok good. That's your opinion. You can't force that on others. Opt-out system is a sneaky way to force people to give their organs even if they don't want to. Your body belongs to you by default, not to the state. You shouldn't have to opt-out to keep that right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddage Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 It's an emotional issue for many. Some people and medical profession don't get it and play guilt trip on others. How many brits are there, 60 million? Many will be unaware of opt-out system and forget to opt-out and they'll become the victims. So so cruel. Imagine a family who don't want their family members cut up to pieces and put together again - they will be told "sorry, your parent/child forgot to opt-out. Thanks anyway, here's his body. We've taken everything out of him. Thanks". And get their loved one's corpse all stitched up like Frankenstein. How is it a justice to force an emotional turmoil? It's bad enough already losing a loved one. At least with a donar card there is much less sense of being forced into it. If you want to donate, ok good. That's your opinion. You can't force that on others. Opt-out system is a sneaky way to force people to give their organs even if they don't want to. Your body belongs to you by default, not to the state. You shouldn't have to opt-out to keep that right. What if you were going to be cremated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flaight Posted July 16, 2007 Author Share Posted July 16, 2007 Still the same Eddage. As I said, it's an emotional issue for many people, whether you empathize with them or not. It's not a matter of body disintegrating, it's more about not wanting the dead one being tampered like a playground clay. As I said, if you are happy with it, that's fine, let that be done to you and your family. Just don't force that onto others who disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaggle64 Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 It's an emotional issue for many. Some people and medical profession don't get it and play guilt trip on others. How many brits are there, 60 million? Many will be unaware of opt-out system and forget to opt-out and they'll become the victims. So so cruel. Many are unaware of the opt-in system too. The result is the deaths of hundreds of people, of all ages, due to a massive shortage of transplants. It's an emotional issue for some people. So so cruel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flaight Posted July 16, 2007 Author Share Posted July 16, 2007 gaggle64, I'm aware of that. But how is it the default should be to force everybody to give their organs? Around the world many people need money, so should we all give up our money by default, unless we opt-out? Doing good doesn't mean you are forced into doing it. There are personal circumstances and feelings. Why is it wrong to honour that by default? As I said, if you want to give your organs, fine. Great. That's your choice and nobody can stop you. Likewise, if somebody doesn't, that should be honoured. Your might agree with it, but that gives you no right to force it on others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan_Dare Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 If we are coming up with hypothetical situations it could be some drunk who has destroyed his liver. no it couldn't. Drunks and drug abusers, along with fatties and general body abusers are bared from donor lists on the grounds of being unstable cretins who would waste their chance and deny someone clean a fresh start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaggle64 Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 gaggle64, I'm aware of that. But how is it the default should be to force everybody to give their organs? Around the world many people need money, so should we all give up our money by default, unless we opt-out? Doing good doesn't mean you are forced into doing it. There are personal circumstances and feelings. Why is it wrong to honour that by default? As I said, if you want to give your organs, fine. Great. That's your choice and nobody can stop you. Likewise, if somebody doesn't, that should be honoured. Your might agree with it, but that gives you no right to force it on others. Nobody is being forced. That's the "opt-out" bit of the opt out system. It is not wrong to honour that choice. It would just save the lives of a great many people if the other option was the default. To ignore that would be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flaight Posted July 16, 2007 Author Share Posted July 16, 2007 Nobody is being forced. That's the "opt-out" bit of the opt out system. It is not wrong to honour that choice. It would just save the lives of a great many people if the other option was the default. To ignore that would be wrong.Yeah I understand that "nobody is being forced". But if you read my earlier posts, I make my point that many people will likely be unaware of this system and forget to opt-out. Then that person and the family is in for a big emotional torture, if they didn't want it to happen. That's as good as being forced. It's not fair to force people to go through that suffering by default. If you want to help others by giving your organs, opt in. That's good. I have no probs with that. But setting up a situation in which some people will likely be caught out and later telling them "tough, you didn't opt-out" is surely heartless. Read my earlier posts. I've elaborated on this a bit more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaggle64 Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 Yeah I understand that "nobody is being forced". But if you read my earlier posts, I make my point that many people will likely be unaware of this system and forget to opt-out. Then that person and the family is in for a big emotional torture, if they didn't want it to happen. That's as good as being forced. It's not fair to force people to go through that suffering by default. If you want to help others by giving your organs, opt in. That's good. I have no probs with that. But setting up a situation in which some people will likely be caught out and later telling them "tough, you didn't opt-out" is surely heartless. The question is then, are you willing to let other people die so that some don't have to be "forced?" What about that persons family? What about the emotional torture they must suffer? How is that fair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flaight Posted July 16, 2007 Author Share Posted July 16, 2007 The question is then, are you willing to let other people die so that some don't have to be "forced?" What about that persons family? What about the emotional torture they must suffer? How is that fair?Gaggle, people die. Tell me otherwise. People die. That's how we are. Let's turn the argument around then. There are many african and eastern europeans who need your money. I will come to you tomorrow to take everything away from you and your family. Why not? It will save people. It's for the good. That's fair, right? Or should that be your choice? Should that be forced out of you? In the end, it's an emotional issue. Whether you are dead or not does not change that. That's why there is a phrase "respect for the dead". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 So the standard argument is "It might upset my family." You're dead, how much more upset are they going to get? At the moment a doctor has to ask your family for permission and interrupt their grieving. With this method, they don't have to. If you're into the whole 'respect for the dead, screw the living' thing you'll have opted out. If you don't feel strongly about that, you won't have. No need to hassle the family. As for "you can't force people to give X", that already happens. You have no choice over if you pay taxes or if those taxes go to treat a cancer sufferer, overthrow a dictator, give someone disability benefits or fix a street light. With this not only is it taking something useless to you, if it really bothers you then you do have a choice, you can opt out. EDIT: Decided to stop being a hypocrite and signed up as an organ donor myself http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/how_to_become_a_donor/registration/consent.jsp Took less than a minute, just name, address and email basically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flaight Posted July 16, 2007 Author Share Posted July 16, 2007 I don't disagree with you BlueStar. I think there is a lot of truth in what you say and I too get it, but opt-out system would be such a nasty system for those who get caught out, and believe you me, there will be many who will be. Just because you don't share the same mindset as those who's sentiments would lead to a lot of grieving about the dead (or for that matter, about the will of the dead), doesn't mean we should set them up in such a system. Also errors are prone to happen and I bet there will be cases where those who opted out are in error cut up. All they get will be an 'apology'. Opt out system is a risk to many people, and it's totally unnecessary and insensitive. Increasing donation can be achieved in many ways, much safer ways by introducing much more aggressive awareness campaign. Opt-out system is such a cop out way to 'try' solve this problem you are referring to. Just because you (and I) pity those who are dying because of organ shortage doesn't mean you disregard the sentiments of those who disagree with you by playing a guilt trip on them. Donation is a donation - you will yourself to donate, if you choose to. Opt-in system is just fine, so long as it's supported by a good system to allow people to easily opt-in, should they choose to. We will risk no errors either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1275540,00.html Medical Chief Demands New Donor RulesTuesday July 17, 2007 Britain's most senior medical official is calling for everyone to be treated as an organ donor after their death, unless they specifically opt out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts