Organ Donors. - Page 3

jambutty · 07-09-2006, 12:56

I accept that every single person has the right to decree what happens to their bodies on their demise. This includes parents making the decision on behalf of their children under 12 or 13 years of age. I feel that a 12 years old child is perfectly capable of making that decision for him/herself if given all the facts and not pressured into going one way or the other. Maybe a lesson or two in school would help?

I doubt if there are many people around who would NOT ACCEPT an organ from someone else, except Jehovah Witnesses and any other religious sect that bars such things to postpone death. But to be prepared to accept an organ and object to giving one of theirs is a very selfish act.

Maybe the system should include some way where a person who is not prepared to offer their organs after death, should not be eligible to receive an organ should they ever need it. In other words a potential recipient of an organ should have already declared themselves as a potential organ donor BEFORE they had a need for a donated organ themselves in order to be eligible to receive a donated organ.

jambutty · 07-09-2006, 12:59

Sorry about the double post. The forum is misbehaving for me today.

garinda · 07-09-2006, 14:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

I have nothing against a couple receiving medical help if they cannot conceive by the tried and tested method but isn’t it storing up future problems for the offspring?

What I mean is that if the inability to become pregnant or father a child is down to a genetic malfunction, won’t that same or similar malfunction be passed on to the resultant baby? Then she or he will have the same sort of problem and so it goes on and on.

Don’t take this too harshly but if a woman is unable to conceive or a man unable to father a child, isn’t that nature’s way of saying, “hang on we have a defective person here and we don’t want to pass the defect on to further generations.”

There are many different ways, not only genetic, as to why people may be sterile.

A woman may become sterile after catching chlamydia, or as a result of an ectopic pregnancy.

Helping people like this to have the family they might crave surely isn't wrong.

After all without the advancements of medical science that we have now, a lot of you old ones would have passed over to the other side.

Or are you cheating nature, just as you suggest Mother Nature makes people sterile to avoid passing on defects to future generations?

Gayle · 07-09-2006, 15:20

In case anyone's interested - you can register online

http://www.livelifethengivelife.co.uk/links.php

jambutty · 07-09-2006, 16:26

Unless I have suddenly lost the ability to read and write in English I never mentioned anything about non-genetic conceiving problems. Nor did I say that it was wrong to help families who cannot have children for other reasons.

But then that is what I have come to expect from some correspondents. They try to put words into my mouth.

It isn’t just the older ones who would probably not be here if it wasn’t for medical intervention. Many youngsters wouldn’t get past their teenage years let alone well into adulthood.

My only point was I was ASKING if it wasn’t storing up problems for the future if a couple cannot have offspring for genetic reasons, yet are helped to do so.

Crabby · 07-09-2006, 16:44

I agree with jambytty it should br opt out
if people are so aginst it the would be sure to opt out
but people just forget or dont get round to opting in

would save lots of lives to
that cant be bad

Crabby · 07-09-2006, 16:45

I agree with jambytty it should br opt out
if people are so aginst it they would be sure to opt out
but people just forget or dont get round to opting in

would save lots of lives to
that cant be bad

garinda · 07-09-2006, 17:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

Unless I have suddenly lost the ability to read and write in English I never mentioned anything about non-genetic conceiving problems. Nor did I say that it was wrong to help families who cannot have children for other reasons.

Since when did I become a correspondent? This is neither a letter nor a newpaper...however back to the thread.

I don't have the ability to put words in anyone's mouth, I can however quote what you originally said-

"Don’t take this too harshly but if a woman is unable to conceive or a man unable to father a child, isn’t that nature’s way of saying, “hang on we have a defective person here and we don’t want to pass the defect on to further generations.”

Black and white and clear for everyone to see what you said.

jambutty · 07-09-2006, 17:49

Quote:

Since when did I become a correspondent? This is neither a letter nor a newpaper...

Since the first day that you made your first post garinda.

Correspondent - a person who writes letters, especially on a regular basis.
You may argue that your post is not a letter as such, however:
Letter - a written, typed, or printed communication, sent by post or messenger.
Your post is a printed communication sent by messenger – the Internet.

However I have no intention of arguing semantics (the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text.) with you.

Anyone can take a piece out of context and make it mean something else, which is what you have done and I can quote what I originally wrote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty
I have nothing against a couple receiving medical help if they cannot conceive by the tried and tested method but isn’t it storing up future problems for the offspring?

What I mean is that if the inability to become pregnant or father a child is down to a genetic malfunction, won’t that same or similar malfunction be passed on to the resultant baby? Then she or he will have the same sort of problem and so it goes on and on.

Don’t take this too harshly but if a woman is unable to conceive or a man unable to father a child, isn’t that nature’s way of saying, “hang on we have a defective person here and we don’t want to pass the defect on to further generations.”

The sentence that you refer to was part of the point about the inability to conceive due to genetic reasons. It was not a stand alone comment.

AccyJay · 07-09-2006, 18:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

Maybe the system should include some way where a person who is not prepared to offer their organs after death, should not be eligible to receive an organ should they ever need it. In other words a potential recipient of an organ should have already declared themselves as a potential organ donor BEFORE they had a need for a donated organ themselves in order to be eligible to receive a donated organ.

This is an excellent idea. Totally agree, unless there is a medical reason for why somebody couldn't donate.

Just found out where & when my next blood donor session is. Thanks for link Billcat. I've put a reminder in my phone.

http://www.blood.co.uk/pages/search.asp

AccyJay · 07-09-2006, 18:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gayle

In case anyone's interested - you can register online

http://www.livelifethengivelife.co.uk/links.php

My girlfriend & i have both just signed up. Thanks for the link.

katex · 07-09-2006, 18:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by AccyJay

This is an excellent idea. Totally agree, unless there is a medical reason for why somebody couldn't donate.

What about children though AccyJay, are they allowed to agree to donate their organs ?

AccyJay · 07-09-2006, 18:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by katex

What about children though AccyJay, are they allowed to agree to donate their organs ?

I'm with Jambutty on this one.

PHP Code:


			
I accept that every single person has the right to decree what happens to their bodies on their demise. This includes parents making the decision on behalf of their children under 12 or 13 years of age. I feel that a 12 years old child is perfectly capable of making that decision for him/herself if given all the facts and not pressured into going one way or the other. Maybe a lesson or two in school would help?

katex · 07-09-2006, 18:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by AccyJay

I'm with Jambutty on this one.

PHP Code:


			
I accept that every single person has the right to decree what happens to their bodies on their demise. This includes parents making the decision on behalf of their children under 12 or 13 years of age. I feel that a 12 years old child is perfectly capable of making that decision for him/herself if given all the facts and not pressured into going one way or the other. Maybe a lesson or two in school would help?

Still a little unclear here ... ok .. parents, at present, can make the decision once the child has passed away, however, goes on to say that a 12 year old is perfectly capable of making the decision to sign up for donors card, but under this age is what I am getting at. A 2-year old dies and heart passed on to new born.. who, obviously, would not be capable of applying for a donor's card and, therefore, could not accept a donated organ. So what happens then ? Would be quite a few anomalies and grey areas in this thinking.
Am I making sense ?

katex · 07-09-2006, 18:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by AccyJay

I'm with Jambutty on this one.

PHP Code:


			
I accept that every single person has the right to decree what happens to their bodies on their demise. This includes parents making the decision on behalf of their children under 12 or 13 years of age. I feel that a 12 years old child is perfectly capable of making that decision for him/herself if given all the facts and not pressured into going one way or the other. Maybe a lesson or two in school would help?

I always like to repeat my points of view, gives it more clout like ... teehee.

Actually, just a double post.