You bring up a really good point here. Grieving relatives often don't make sound choices. When one's close kin dies, especially unexpectedly, one doesn't want to think authorize removing the organs and such...

 

On that point, personally I'd like to be cremated in a cheap, plywood box with little or no pomp and circumstance. But I know my family would want to have the funeral and the casket and all that...all a waste of money, in my mind... but part of the grieving process I guess.

 

But I digress...

 

I have my funeral planned right down to the very last detail and the post funeral stuff, the majority of it very untraditional but I hope it will be a good 20 or 30 years before it is put into practice

Edited July 17, 200718 yr by Vic Vega

I would also like to be cremated when I die and not burried so it's better someone gets my organs.

I would also like to be cremated when I die and not burried so it's better someone gets my organs.

 

I was in favour of cremation with ashes scattered either at Silverstone or White Hart Lane but settled in the end on a burial as want a permenant memorial for me for my family although have told my family that I wish to be buried in a Spurs shirt

 

But other areas of my funeral will be unconventional - Taken to my final resting place by plumed white horses, local curry house hired for a curry and champagne based wake for friends and family, gospel choir in the funeral, no one to wear black, no crying etc etc etc, I want my final chapter to be a celebration of my life that reflects all aspects of my life not some sad occasion full of pomp and religion

I’m sure there are some who need transplants because they’ve abused their bodies, but I would reckon that the majority need a new organ through no fault of their own and I would like to think that the surgeons treat the donors’ bodies with respect and don’t go carving them up like a butcher.

Personally, I have no problem with having my organs taken when I’m dead. They’ll certainly be of no use to me then and, since I intend to be cremated, they’ll be destroyed anyway. I think it would be a great legacy if I could help a sick person to live, although, naturally, I hope to die of old age.

 

It must be very difficult for doctors to broach the subject of organ donation with the grieving relatives of those who’ve died, or those who have no hope of recovery and, this results in a shortage of organs available. I honestly believe that it’s important for those who wish to become organ donors in the event of their death, to be registered and to inform their families, which would make it so much easier for their wishes to be carried out in the event of their death. I, personally, would have no problem with an opt-out system, although I appreciate that others may not agree with it.

 

Oh I do, I promise... it's just one of those areas where I've yet to hear a rational, reasonable defense of organ donation refusal. I believe it's because there is no rational or reasonable justification for not donating one's organs. Now if it's a personal belief, fine, the law allows you to act upon that belief.

 

i dont think this justifies needing a rational, reasonable explaination.... like love, its all down to a deeply personal thing that is just that... a personal feeling.

My gut instinct tells me that I'm in favour of this.

 

Vic - you say organ donation should be voluntary? IT WOULD BE!

 

you would be able to opt out of the scheme, but otherwise doctors/surgeons will be able to take what they want without permission.

 

If you decided you didn't want your organs donated, a 2 minute phone call to the Organ Donor's Register would remove you from any involvement in this scheme. The proposal is not to make it COMPULSARY, but to try to get more people to donate - if you don't want to, you still don't have to.

 

As far as I'm aware, 90% of people would like to donate organs, but only 30% are on the register, simply because they don't know there is one, or they haven't bothered to do it. Surely this scheme would mean that this other 60% of people would be donating organs, thus saving thousands of lives every year? And then surely the 10% who don't want to donate, would make the phone call to say "I don't want to" ... if they don't make that effort, then IMO they have no right to complain if they're still on the list after 50 years of having the opportunity to take themselves off it?

 

As far as I'm concerned, this could get us so many more donors, and save so many more lives. And if you don't want to be a part of it, you don't have to - I don't see a huge flaw in the proposal?

I was in favour of cremation with ashes scattered either at Silverstone or White Hart Lane but settled in the end on a burial as want a permenant memorial for me for my family although have told my family that I wish to be buried in a Spurs shirt

 

But other areas of my funeral will be unconventional - Taken to my final resting place by plumed white horses, local curry house hired for a curry and champagne based wake for friends and family, gospel choir in the funeral, no one to wear black, no crying etc etc etc, I want my final chapter to be a celebration of my life that reflects all aspects of my life not some sad occasion full of pomp and religion

 

I like the way u think. I was thinking about the conventional funeral also but then I changed my mind...

 

I have to say I absolutely applaud the courageousness of this move, I am in TOTAL agreement with this measure... I think it's about time that something proactive was done to help people who have been waiting years in some cases for a replacement organ, and it seems that this is the only way to do it.. I think it is the most craven selfishness to not donate your organs (big surprise that Craig the Tory is dead against it then..... :lol: :P ) to others, dead is dead, and it seems utterly bizarre to me that the two biggest opponents of this measure are those who claim to not believe in an "afterlife" and dont have any time for religion, frankly, I dont even believe there should be an "opt-out", what the fukk do you need your bloody heart, liver and kidneys for when you're dead...???

 

It was the hypocricy of the Church that tried to stifle this very important, very necessary medical research for years, forcing respectable doctors who studied anatomy underground and into illegal research, forcing them to turn to graverobbers and criminal scum like Burke and Hare in order to obtain cadavers to carry out their important research which has saved countless lives..... Yes, you do get the (very) odd undeserving case like George Best, but for every George Best, there's Christ knows how many thousands of people who are victims not of their own fault, especially children.... I, like Russ find that arguement to try and get this wholly humanitarian measure being stopped totally morally offensive..... We DO have an obligation to others in this world, it's about time we stopped being selfish b/astards and stepped up to the plate, no one is talking about grabbing your kidney when you're still ALIVE ffs. If you cant be arsed when you're alive, the least you can do is help someone when you're dead.....

i think the difficulty is when theres a kid involved, which bizarrely is arguably the ones nedded most. i dont think parents would take easily to have their little kid cut up.. its a difficult one.

i think the difficulty is when theres a kid involved, which bizarrely is arguably the ones nedded most. i dont think parents would take easily to have their little kid cut up.. its a difficult one.

 

I think we should really stop using the term "cut up" to describe an actual legit medical procedure here Rob, it gives entirely the wrong impression... We aint talking about talking about going at people with a hunting knife or summat... People really need to get past this whole idea that trained, professional surgeons are gonna be "cutting up" people.... I just wonder how the gutter press is gonna react to this idea.. They'll probably come up with some ridiculous hyperbole about "evil" doctors "cutting up" kids I would imagine.... -_-

I think the child aspect is the most interesting and important of the whole thing.

 

I can understand that many parents suffering the loss of their child would have trouble giving their child away, BUT I'd hope that some would realise that, as Scott pointed out, we do have an obligation to others, and if the shoe was on their other foot and their child could die because they have no donations, they'd find it in them to do the right thing and help their child help another live.

 

I think it'd give me a lot of comfort and peace to know that even though my child was taken from me, some good could come out of it and me and my child could stop the same tragedy happening to another family.

 

Presumably it'd be a parental decision until age 16/18, and of course some parents couldn't bear the thought of their child being "cut up", but I'd hope that some would still have the strength to go ahead with it - maybe when they're old enough to understand parents should have 'the conversation' with the child to find out what they want, and go by that if something did happen.

Edited July 19, 200717 yr by Andrewy