this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2024
311 points (93.3% liked)

Canada

10408 readers
921 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


πŸ’΅ Finance, Shopping, Sales


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 29 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Maybe if donating organs was compulsory they wouldn't be so rare.

[–] Shou@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In my country, everyone is an organ donor unless they specifically opt out. Usually due to religion.

I've been seeing organ transportation ambulances near my city's hospital from time to time. It's weird to see, but a good thing.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There should be no opt out, even for religion. No I do not respect your customs as much as I respect someone else's life.

[–] Shou@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I agree. I think people who choose to opt out for selfish reasons should be placed lower on the list. It's inmensely hypocritical.

[–] Bashnagdul@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They still need to be a match

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Imagine how many matching organs are just left to rot in the ground.

[–] Bashnagdul@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Can't just implant a 90 year old liver. And a lot of them are unsalvageable. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be mandatory, just that it will still be a limited resource.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't want to be morbid, but with as many gun deaths as there are in the US there are lots of young livers to go around.

[–] papertowels@lemmy.one 4 points 1 year ago

God, the custom tailored ideal American healthcare system, you're right but I hate it lol

[–] Bashnagdul@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Once again. There is more than the USA out there....

[–] Shou@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In my country, people are automatically registered as a donor. If you don't want to donate, you have to choose to opt out.

Ever since that law was passed, I see organ transport ambulances around my city's hospital from time to time. Transporting a matching organ to a waiting patient. The bold letters spelling "organ transport" on a red band is a weird but good thing to see.

[–] Bashnagdul@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago
[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago

I think the US can supply surplus to its neighbors.

[–] piccolo@ani.social 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah... no. Perhaps opt out by default, but not compulsory.

[–] QuizzaciousOtter@lemm.ee 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why not? Why do you need the ability to deprive someone of a live saving procedure after you literally died?

[–] piccolo@ani.social 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I dont know. Probably because it risks being abused. The US already has private prisons filled to the brim with trivial felons forced to work in sweat shops... im sure theyll love to sell their organs too after dying from heat stroke.

[–] QuizzaciousOtter@lemm.ee 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I see, that's a valid concern. I wonder whether we could try to prevent such abuse by automatically excluding more prone groups like prisoners. It really seems crazy to me how many organs, which could literally save someone's life, are going to waste.

[–] piccolo@ani.social 12 points 1 year ago

I think opt out would be sufficient. Right now, its a compilcated to opt in and not many people thinks about it. In my state, the only time you see it, is a small checkbox when you get a drivers license.

But being opt out everyone is included unless they choose not to, for whatever reason. Which is think is more than fair. Its their body, they should have the right to do whatever they wish, regardless if they arent using it anymore. The amount of people opting out would be a minority, so it shouldn't really be a concern.

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you mean opt in by default?

[–] piccolo@ani.social 12 points 1 year ago

No, the current system is opt in. You have to choose to be a donor. Opt out means you have to choose not to be.