People should never be forced to give up any part of themselves if they don't want to. So no mandatory organ donation would be a bad thing. Plus after that precedent is set how much longer till people with a spare kidney are solicited by others to give one up for their patient?

I think that everyone should be an organ donor unless they explicitly ask not to be. That way people against it are happy but if you dont care enough to do anything then you help people.

Like others have said, yes by default, opt-out if you wish. There are many people who don't donate because they just don't feel like saying "yes" instead of saying "no" when they get their ID cards. There's so many people who think "well, it's just not my problem."
There are so many people on transplant lists who die LONG before they have a chance to get their much-needed organs.
If people are against it for religious reasons or whatever, that's fine. But letting someone die because you'd because you just can't be bothered to check the box on the form is, in my opinion, the same as (or similar to) killing them yourself. You have the option to save a fellow human being from a horrible, agonizing death. Saying "I just don't care/feel like it" or "these are MY squishy bits!" is one of the most insensitive things I could possibly imagine. It's not like you'll be missing them after they're gone. After all, you're dead. Depending on your faith (or lack thereof) you're either worm-food, or somewhere where all the inside squishy bits hardly seem necessary, or in a whole new body, with whole new organs, or whatever else you believe.

Apologies if I've offended anyone with my horribly simple perspective of life-after-death. It's not my intention to insult anyone's faith.

TL;DR: Keeping your organs for no reason other than you can't be bothered to give them away is selfish. Automatic Yes, with an optional opt-out.

Tipsy Giant:
After they've been scattered the ashes will remain there for all of 3 seconds before they are blown away. Is there some superstition attributed to this (again if you don't mind me asking)

No real superstition, it is just what I feel comfortable with. The whole prospect with taking organs from another human being, and putting them inside another doesn't really sit well with me anyway. Sure, personal comfort over logic, but whatever.

I think that your organ donor card should only apply when you're young or middle aged, when you're old then your organs become far less healthy.

No, I wouldn't mind it being an opt-out though. I would still opt out just because I hate people. Especially the ones that say "Your dead why would you care?" You're right I'm dead I don't care, so why would I care enough to help people by giving them away? If people respected the dead I'd be more likely to donate.

No, because some people have religious/other beliefs that require them not to have their organs taken out. If a person wants to do that, that's great, but I don't think a person should have their insides taken out even when dead, unless they give conscious consent to it.

manic_depressive13:
Yes, organ donation should be mandatory. If they are sticking the corpse in the ground to rot or incinerating it, what possible justification is there for refusing to have a few organs harvested beforehand? That's stupid, selfish and wasteful. It shouldn't be an option.

Some religions are against it, and you have to respect their freedom to practice religion.

People tend to have a bit of a wrong picture in mind when discussing post-mortem organ donations.

First of all, when a person's dead (clinically, i.e. cardiac arrest, perhaps with a failed resuscitation attempt thrown in the mix), most complex organs are pretty much worthless for transplantation except for when they're taken out in a very short time frame after death, which rarely happens with these patients.
Most organs are taken from patients who are, on a very basic technical level still "alive", meaning their cardiovascular circuit still runs, but suffered of oxygen deprivation of the brain for too long and thus are also counted as "dead".
Now, there is quite an extensive procedure to do before anyone is actually recognized as such, and if there is even a hint of brain activity, there are regulations that forbid organ harvesting. Applied to the total number of patients, the ratio of these "harvestable" ones is extremely low.

This is the reason why although there are so many organ donors registered the waiting lists for hearts, lungs etc. are still way too long. That's also the reason I'm advocating the opt-out approach. If someone truly doesn't want to be harvested (however unlikely that actually is, see above), he/she can opt out, but it would open up so many resources to save lives that are untapped right now because people can't be bothered to read trough a one-page form.

I'd like to donate, but I'm terrified of being in the situation where I'm critical, but could be saved, but the hospital in question has a long transplant list...

I'd be all for some way of letting it be known *immediately* after death, like a family member presenting a document or something.

No. Why should it be mandatory?
What if some family's 12 year old child dies? I doubt they'd want his corpse to be looted of it's internal goodies, then stuffed into the ground. What if some lady was raped then killed? I doubt she'd want her body further desecrated, and purged of her organs if she did not choose to do so. I don't even think it's a selfish thing to say that people wouldn't want others to take their organs. It's their organs. What if some people wanted their funeral to be an open casket, for religious or traditional purposes? I doubt they'd want to be eyeless, and gutless, having everyone see. What if someone wanted to be cremated and have their ashes spread across some place?

Point is, different deaths have different funeral repercussions. Deaths are way too sensitive of a matter to go around and auto-checking YES, allowing their bodies to be sucked clean of what made them, them.
Sure, if someone chooses to be an organ donor, then go for it; but that's about it.

Of course! I can understand why some people may feel uncomfortable thinking about it, but to not be an organ donor is actively not wanting to help someone in a way that does no actual harm to you at all.

Yes.
Destroying organs by setting them on fire or leaving them to rot is just plain wrong if those organs could save the life of another person.

But I can't be brought back to like Lovecraft-style if I'm not intact!

Meh, if it was mandatory I would hardly protest against it, but I would feel sorry for the people who don't want to donate, but are forced by peer pressure or people shouting 'Selfish organ-holding scum'.

Still, I like the idea of necromancy, so stay inside me little organies :D

gideonkain:

manic_depressive13:
Yes, organ donation should be mandatory. If they are sticking the corpse in the ground to rot or incinerating it, what possible justification is there for refusing to have a few organs harvested beforehand? That's stupid, selfish and wasteful. It shouldn't be an option.

Some religions are against it, and you have to respect their freedom to practice religion.

Um, no, I don't. They can practice it all they want while they are alive but once they are dead they don't have any opinions or beliefs. Why should rights and freedoms be granted to something neither capable of thought nor pain? The only issue here is the feelings of their friends and relatives but frankly they can suck a fat one for all I care. Why should their feelings be given precedent over a mother who loses a child or a husband who loses his wife because they could not find a donor in time?

No.

It is my body. Even in death I hold dominion over it.

So no. I do not like my choices being made for me, even if the 'opt out' system is easy to get out of. My organs will be donated because of my own conscious choice and not because I was unaware it was the 'default'.

What kind of prick would keep someone else form living just because something "used" to be his? If your going anywhere your certainly not taking them with you.

No. Read the fine print about organ donation. Most people think it's; 'oh, if I die my organs will go to those who need them' Used to think that and used to be a donor until I saw the option to read the agreement, out of curiosity, I did.

No, it's more along the lines of 'if I die, my body can be used for medical experimentation and medical research without the consent of my family or loved ones'. It's like an EULA, you're signing away all your rights and your family's rights to your body after you're dead without reading anything.

I reserve the right to reclaim my organs should I awaken from the dead 3 days later, realizing I was the second coming of Jesus Christ.

No; shouldn't be mandatory...
People have a choice as to whether or not they want their body chopped up like dog food...
I mean, what is there to gain from it?

You give someone you've never met before a (possible) 'second' life... Why should I care about that guy/girl?

I know it seems heartless, but unless I know them, I could care less...

Besides, I plan to go out with a bang, so, there wouldn't be anything you COULD salvage off me anyway...

I think it should be an opt out approach, so if you don't want to donate your organs then fine you don't have to. But the automatic assumption is that you would. With the amount of people that die from not getting what they need - it is a bit ridiculous how many people are being buried with perfectly good organs that can save lives, and they just never thought to donate them after death.

But above so many other things that should ALWAYS be the decision of the person themselves is what happens to their organs. They shouldn't HAVE to give up any part of themelves if they don't want to.

Bertylicious:
I am utterly astonished by the number of people voting "no" to this.

I was astonished to find out there were so many bronies and trans persons on this site, are there a mass of Jehova's Witnesses as well? What are your reasons for wanting your delicious, succulent, organs to rot in the ground/be incinerated?

Please note that a vote of "no" on here doesn't mean people don't want/intend to donate their organs when they die. It means they don't think it should be mandatory.

OT: Is it okay to do something invasive to someone just because they haven't said "no"? Even though it's ultimately beneficial to society/the children/animals/insert-pitiable-object-here?

If you want to donate organs, you can make that choice. It is not a choice for someone else to make for you if you have not, however good it may be for other people.

I'm still on the fence about forking over my innards come my purchased plot. However, I can assure you that if some stranger (or even someone I know and am quite fond of) tells me to do something, anything, because it will "save" little Shelby, and it is the right thing to do, you can bet your shiny bits I'll outright refuse.

And if they press me, I'll make sure that whatever I leave behind is unsalvageable. Even if that means diving head-first into a wood chipper.

I don't care who it might help and how many lives it might save. It could be for the sake of all life on earth. It will be my choice to do it. Little Shelby can go burn otherwise.

Hell no. My body parts are mine even when I'm dead. I may be dead, but I still want to be whole.

Zeren:
Hell no. My body parts are mine even when I'm dead. I may be dead, but I still want to be whole.

When you're dead it's irrelevant what you want and don't want. You've ceased to exist and therefore nobody owns your body, so it's better if it's put to good use instead of beeing thrown away.

manic_depressive13:

gideonkain:

manic_depressive13:
Yes, organ donation should be mandatory. If they are sticking the corpse in the ground to rot or incinerating it, what possible justification is there for refusing to have a few organs harvested beforehand? That's stupid, selfish and wasteful. It shouldn't be an option.

Some religions are against it, and you have to respect their freedom to practice religion.

Um, no, I don't. They can practice it all they want while they are alive but once they are dead they don't have any opinions or beliefs. Why should rights and freedoms be granted to something neither capable of thought nor pain? The only issue here is the feelings of their friends and relatives but frankly they can suck a fat one for all I care. Why should their feelings be given precedent over a mother who loses a child or a husband who loses his wife because they could not find a donor in time?

It might make you feel like a Bad Ass to disrespect other culture's beliefs, but the fact is there are things you hold sacred that you wouldn't want people to trample all over. That's how society works, we strive to make room for all those "crazy ideas", be they God or Income Tax.

If you don't than I feel sorry for your mindset, it will only lead to tragedy.

I think default Yes with easy opt-out is the way to go.

Absolutely not. I think you should be asked once you reach a certain age - legal adulthood seems fair - so the possibility is at least presented to you. Some people don't think about it, afterall.

Mandatory is way too much, though, and I think even making it the default until someone says they don't want to do it is going too far, because then there'd be less screening for the donors, it being the regular thing. Let's be honest, here: a lot of people take shitty care of their bodies, and are probably better off not donating parts of it to others.

Making people more aware they can do it, and the benefits behind doing it, is fine and dandy, though.

No. And if it does become mandatory before I die I'll just ensure I die in such a way that my organs become useless. I really really really do not want to save anyone else's life whom I do not know. Personally I feel the world's population is to damn high. I do not want to contribute in any way to make it larger.

Zyrocz:

Zeren:
Hell no. My body parts are mine even when I'm dead. I may be dead, but I still want to be whole.

When you're dead it's irrelevant what you want and don't want. You've ceased to exist and therefore nobody owns your body, so it's better if it's put to good use instead of beeing thrown away.

I could put it in a will and then legally you wouldn't be able to do shit to me. I win.

Mandatory organ donation? No.

If someone wants their body to be harvested for any good organs when they no longer need them, fine. but if someone doesnt want their organs removed, than they wish should be fallowed. I also dont like the idea of this "Default Yes", as just how difficault would it be for someone to get off said list.

ReinWeisserRitter:
Mandatory is way too much, though, and I think even making it the default until someone says they don't want to do it is going too far, because then there'd be less screening for the donors, it being the regular thing. Let's be honest, here: a lot of people take shitty care of their bodies, and are probably better off not donating parts of it to others.

This is another reason, If I need a new heart for what ever reason, I want a heart from someone who willing chose to be a organ donor, as s/he would have taken care of their body. I dont want a heart from some guy that didnt bother to opt-out and treated his body like a amusement park.

And just to point out, I would most likely have signed up to be a organ donor. But I had a type of blood-based cancer that basically made my body (and thusly my organs) radioactive. No body would probably accept my organs. So its not that I could donate, and choose not to, its that I just cant.

*Edit*

Hell, I cant even donate blood...

They should be automatically registered to be organ donors, but have an easy way to cancel this. I cringe at the thought of making the process as difficult as possible as most processes that require government input tend to be drawn out and time consuming anyway.

gideonkain:
It might make you feel like a Bad Ass to disrespect other culture's beliefs, but the fact is there are things you hold sacred that you wouldn't want people to trample all over. That's how society works, we strive to make room for all those "crazy ideas", be they God or Income Tax.

If you don't than I feel sorry for your mindset, it will only lead to tragedy.

I think default Yes with easy opt-out is the way to go.

I hold lots of things sacred that are trampled all over all the time, like the lives of animals. If a belief is regressive, I don't care whose culture or religion it belongs to. I'm not suggesting we should desecrate corpses just for lulz. People's lives can be saved by harvesting the organs of the deceased. Thus, withholding one's organs is harmful. Beliefs cease to be valid the moment they become harmful to society. Someone's religious or cultural beliefs should never detract from another person's right to life or self-determination. However, once they are dead it is fair game as far as I'm concerned.

How the hell is wanting to save people's lives "Bad Ass". I just want things to not die where it can be avoided. Is that so wrong?

No. The government and random sick people don't have a rightful claim to your organs and they shouldn't.

Yes they're going to waste, blah blah blah. It's not their stuff.

Father Time:

Yes they're going to waste, blah blah blah. It's not their stuff.

Well, once you're dead, neither is it yours. Legally, you're no longer a person who can "own" stuff.

However, I'd say opt-out. If you care enough about not getting your organs used, you'll find the time to make sure they stay where they are. I'd also give a free "Selfish git" tattoo to everyone who opts out (it's good, since it's free of charge, right?), but that'd be pushing it, I think.

That last part was a joke. But, yes, opt-out.

Oh and look, slippery slope arguments all over. Never seen those before.

Normally, in other similar "forced" circumstances, I'd be against it, but in the case of organ donors, there is literally no reason to say no. You're just selfish with your dead husk to deny someone else their right to live. I say make everyone a compulsory donor, because that will only improve things for the people who are still alive.