As usual CJ Morgan allows himself excuses that he wouldn't give any other poster. That would mean giving up his only recourse to contrary opinions, and that is belittlement and character assassination. It's not my business or responsibility to run after CJ Morgan or any other poster to manage their assertions and or accusations. Learn to read and take the time necessary to actually comprehend what others write. It may mean that you give up pouncing with personal attacks but, over all general discussion will improve.

Intriguing story, Johni. I wonder if Jim Cameron agreed to become a donor himself after he received a heart transplant.
I agree with Snout that it’s fair that ‘opt-outers’ should go to the bottom of the waiting list. Although I wouldn’t want to deny anyone a transplant, if there is a shortage of organs, donors should have priority.

Aqvarivs,
I’m interested in your reasons because I’m struggling to understand why people wouldn’t want to be donors. And you do bring some interesting points to think about into this discussion.

I understand that one of the reasons you don’t want to donate is because you want your family to profit from your organs. Even though it is kind to be concerned about the financial security of your family; there are better ways to secure them, e.g. life insurance. Thing is, if you want to sell your organs, someone has to pay.
Would this be a fair system? And what if one of your family members would pass away- would it make you happier to profit from their organs?

Another one of your reasons is two-fold:
A. Concern for the recipient of your organs- will the person’s quality of life really improve? You doubt that. Good point, but not all organs are the same.
For kidney patients their life quality improves significantly post transplant. People who regain their sight will also be able to enjoy their lives much more. And what about that little heart patient that Zoe’s mum’s daughter saved?

If you are concerned that your organs won’t improve the life of a patient, you could inform yourself about which organs definitely benefit people’s health. Then you could make a choice- you could only donate these organs that you know will make a big difference. You don’t have to donate all of your organs, just some of them will be better than none.
I assume that it is possible to tick only those organs that you want to donate- e.g. eyes and kidneys.
Continued below

B. concerns about costs for the tax payers. The author would refute this argument; he said “And think of what you are achieving: you are helping the general population by saving money and releasing the burden on our hospitals….” Releasing burden on hospitals is always a good thing. Again, educate yourself by finding out what donating your different organs will mean to taxpayers. For me, all taxpayers are there to support each other in times of disease or illness. Any decision that benefits patients AND taxpayers is superior to one that benefits just one side.

I am not convinced about your argument that very few organ recipients are able to go back to work; for kidney patients this is not so- being on dialysis takes huge chunks out of someone’s time and this will interfere with any job. I would’ve thought that after the transplant they’d be able to regain much of their working life again. Jim Cameron was able to work again as are other recipients of hearts. What evidence do you have that most organ recipients are incapable to return to the work force?

As a last argument you address human value.
First of all, nobody in this discussion has claimed that we are a bunch of useless tissue. You’re just having a go at me because you don’t like my pro-choice arguments in the Abortion Conundrum thread. I said that a zygote, blastocyst or embryo is not a human being. Since I am the only one in this discussion who’s also in the abortion discussion, you are just aiming at me- not at the others; they were not there.
Continued below

I wouldn't want to give the living any more value than the value that they themselves put on others lives as evidenced by their thinking on taking life when it suits them. I'm one of the few who believe that people should be held accountable to their beliefs and personal philosophy. And people with no moral or ethical philosophy but greed get nothing from me.
I believe in free will not in a free pass, and people who have shown no regard for their fellow man or the sanctity of human life need not be shown such consideration in their time of need. Especially the use of organs that will extend that selfish existence one iota.
Each human being is born with a clock that begins it's countdown from the moment of conception. Some life last but a single day. Some a hundred years. Some life is lost by accident and through disease and others life lost in heroic deeds serving their societies. I'm not under any illusion that all life is of equal value. YOU have shown me THAT. That values can be selectively applied. I'M saying that anything that would extend YOUR lives ought to be equally selectively applied. Do you have any value? Let those who want their lives extended through the use of other peoples organs prove their worth, their value. Who have you been in thought and deed that gives you more of a value than the lives you have taken for your own individual purpose?

Aqvarivs,
Are you saying you don’t want to donate your organs to immoral people unless they pay for your organs? As long as they pay you don’t care how immoral they are?

Back to “value”.
On the Big Donor Show, the ‘donor’ had the difficult task of selecting a donor out of about 30 matches. Who did she think was most worthy of her kidney? What I liked about this was that the elimination process highlighted that it is a near impossible to decide who would be ‘worthy’. Indeed, at one stage at the beginning of the elimination process, the donor eliminated all patients who were not donors themselves.

The thing about value is- worthiness is in the eyes of the beholder. We all have someone in our life who would find it worthy to save us, who cries with us when we suffer and who hopes with us that we will be saved. I wouldn’t want the impossible task of having to decide if someone is worthy of saving or not. Just trust that this person is loved by someone.

Even if, in your eyes, a patient is not worthy enough to be the recipient of one of your organs, then perhaps the people who love this patient are worthy enough to be spared the grief and pain of losing their loved one. Is a baby worthy of having its mother saved?

If you are against organ donations because each human is born with a clock and we have to just accept the length of our lifespan, then you would equally oppose any life saving operation or treatment.
Breast cancer? Accept it- it’s your clock.
Brain tumor? Too bad, accept your natural life span.
Car accident? Don't bother calling an ambulance.

All that suffering is unnecessary. If we can have daylight saving- we can manipulate that clock of life a little, too! As much as we can enjoy longer, lighter days, we can enjoy a longer, healthier life, if we choose. All we need to do is help each other.

Celivia, you continue to deconstruct to your preconceptions. Your a wonderful dancer and I like observing your movements circulus in probando and your fallacy of many questions. You seem to be unaware that such use is counter to the question at hand and your assumptions with in your questioning require similar proof, and that ideological emotive relationships do not prove assumptions.

Let me repeat again. I wouldn't want to give the living any more value than the value that they themselves put on others lives as evidenced by their thinking on taking life when it suits them. I'm one of the few who believe that people should be held accountable to their beliefs and personal philosophy.

I believe in free will not in a free pass, and people who have shown no regard for their fellow man or the sanctity of human life need not be shown such consideration in their time of need. Especially the use of organs that will extend that selfish existence one iota.

I'm not under any illusion that all life is of equal value. YOU have shown me THAT. That your VALUES can be selectively applied. I'M saying that anything that would extend YOUR lives ought to be equally SELECTIVELY applied.

Therefore, the question isn't should there be organ transplants or are you a willing donor? The question rather should be who is to receive said available organs and have they led a pro-life existence. Those who are not pro-life should not benefit from that pool of organs left by those who are pro-life.
Those who are not pro-life should be held to their philosophy that they adopted to take a life or allow a life to be taken.

Dance with the one ya brung.