thats right, vote until you get the result you like

The Dutch Senate has approved the law that will make organ donation opt-out.

Idk how to feel about this. I'm already a donor (did it when it was opt-in), but I do kinda see this as removing bodily authority. Not really feeling this decision tbh.

Boring propagandist bullshit repeated ad nauseum whenever anyone tries to begin a reasoned discussion on the subject. This isn't an argument - it's a phrase used to shut down and invalidate any potential argument before it's even made.



Because nobody could have known the effects of leaving the EU at the time the vote was had. As we near the time when it will happen and once the actual terms of the agreement are laid out people will have a clearer idea of what it is they're voting for.
If you want tighter immigration control and are willing to sacrifice some income for that for example then what happens if immigration is largely unaffected by the decision to leave? Are you still willing to take that hit to your wallet?
We won't know what the eventual terms of the exit from the EU will be. This isn't calling anyone wilfully ignorant - we are all ignorant because we can't reliably predict what the arrangement will look like. I believe that whatever it is it will be much different from what a large number of people wanted when they cast their vote. How could it not be? There have been so many twists, fuckups and total u turns since Theresa May began negotiations and there's no guaranteeing she'll even be around to finish them.

Utter democracy is fucking ridiculous tbh and the people should never have been given the opportunity to vote on something like this. We have representative democracy for a reason. But as long as we are making the stupid fucking decision to hold referenda on an issue of this magnitude we should at least make sure the decision is made by a public who are as informed as possible about that decision.

People were repeatedly warned about the effects of leaving the EU, over and over. In addition, the economic forecasts before the referendum vote were worse than what we're currently experiencing and subsequent growth forecasts are regularly being uplifted as a result. The British people chose to ignore the warnings and voted to leave.



Mass immigration is a big problem in this country but a potentially collapsing economy is an even bigger one, so I'd rather stay in the customs union and accept that the levels of immigration are going to be similar to what they are currently for the foreseeable future.


Which is why we should have a second referendum that solely decides the terms on which we leave and not a complete reversal. Think about it, if the Brexiteers lost the referendum and immediately called for another one we would have laughed them out of the commons and (rightly) accuse them of attempting to subvert democracy. I just don't see how it's any different when you flip the coin on its head.



I agree that the referendum should never have been called in the first place. It was a hubristically called referendum by an arrogant PM who, in my opinion, is one of the worst Prime Ministers in recent history. But we're in this position now and the people voted. Can you name some examples of things we know now that people couldn't have known beforehand without using a quick google search?

Easily for it. If ppl don't want it they can sign out and eventually if the family doesn't want it, it wont happen. It's admittedly is the easy way out, to solve the problem without having to spend money on advertising every two years. It will hopefully gradually become a basic human value, that upon death in an accident during your life, you will automatically save another's life, unless you or your family, objects to it.

This post was edited by Knoppie on Feb 16 2018 07:00pm

i'm with balrog on this one, i think to predetermine your organs are up for donation just widens the already legitimate concerns about possible abuse.
the "ideal" solution in my opinion would be to leave it opt-in, but remind you every single time you see a doctor that there's a decision to be made - and give you an easily accessible and uncomplicated opportunity to do so, encouraging you to actively MAKE that decision.

That's actually what was happening and is happening in the future. The only difference is the starting position of a doctor in case of an incident. You can either start with: "your partner hasn't filled in a donor form so you decide", or "your partner hasn't objected to donations will you allow donations to save lives?".

and that's basically everything that has been changed, legally not much. Just the starting point of a conversation.

This post was edited by Knoppie on Feb 16 2018 07:24pm

i understand the distinction, my point is that while you seem to feel it's not much of a difference, i personally think it IS important. i don't want to justify it with cherry-picked horror stories of abuse or a fallacious slippery slope argument, i just think that as a PRINCIPLE, it is wrong to have your bodily autonomy by default undermined by the state, that's all.

i get where you're coming from though, and i see the ideal behind it as desirable and worth pursuing, but i rather have it morally incentivised than determined by the government.

And I totally understand that part as well.. but... ppl are dying. So there has to be a solution, and imo it's either throwing money at it for advertising or a practical, long term, somewhat harsh solution, for a sensitive subject. I'm actually okey with both solutions tbh, as long as we can save the lives of those who are not getting their donors now.

Only if the country has a "free" healthcare system and till the organs are "delivered" through strict public hospitals it's ok imo. May eliminate the problem of those people agonizing for years before getting a donor.
Better than say sorry from hell with a "shit, i would have donate to save this one". That or feeding worms, easy choice.

This post was edited by Saucisson6000 on Feb 16 2018 07:44pm