Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 09-13-2019, 08:27 AM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo View Post
Speaking of bodily ownership, my property rights to my body extend to putting into it whatever I like. Laws against drug use are therefore immoral.

I'm the human individual who owns the product of my labor. My property rights in that product cannot be taken by the government, and therefore taxation is theft.

I assume you'd agree with both of those things?
I'd agree that you have the right to believe those things and to advocate for them, as I am doing when I advocate against for-profit organ harvesting.

Last edited by Smapti; 09-13-2019 at 08:27 AM.
  #52  
Old 09-13-2019, 08:27 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
I determine that it is wrong because it is not harmonious with my understanding of what the law should be.
Okay. Thankfully for the UK public health system, your bonkers understanding doesn't appear to be popular in the UK.

Quote:
Do I not have the right to declare, via my will and my estate, the means by which my body should be disposed of? This is evidence that I, the person and the will, am legally distinct from the body I inhabit.
That's different than what you said.
  #53  
Old 09-13-2019, 08:28 AM
Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Door View Post
Wait, you think the state doesn't have any say in the disposition of human remains?
No. (Nor did I say any such thing.)

What I think is that there's no legal principle by which the state can treat human remains as "medical waste". The fact that the current discussion centers around the legal rights of a person to control the disposition of organs after death of course acknowledges that.
  #54  
Old 09-13-2019, 08:33 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
I have the right to decide what happens to my body after I die.

You do not.

A failure on my part to sign a form does not entitle you to override whatever my decision may have been.
No, not really. In many jurisdictions, your family decides what to do with your body and can usually override your last wishes. In Canada, 1 in 5 of people who opted to be organ donors had their decision reversed by family*. If no one claims your body (notice the verb there), then you're the state's responsiblity.


*I'm rather certain my wife won't follow my wishes for my body to be dumped in a national park for the wolves.

Last edited by CarnalK; 09-13-2019 at 08:38 AM.
  #55  
Old 09-13-2019, 08:40 AM
Dr_Paprika is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South of Toronto, Canada
Posts: 3,993
I was the person responsible in a small hospital for removing the eyes of people who wanted to donate them. These were carefully used to help others, when possible, and to further medical research.

Organ donation is good, and respectful opt-out policies are good as well IMHO. But no doctor is going to do anything if the family doesn’t want it. Despite Monty Pythonesque scenarios, people can and do change their mind at any time (until they can’t). And organ donation requires a lot of coordination, logistics, cold chains and expertise. Even if you sign the card, your organs probably will not be donated unless other things are aligned.
__________________
"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man"

Last edited by Dr_Paprika; 09-13-2019 at 08:41 AM.
  #56  
Old 09-13-2019, 08:44 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
And what evidence do you have that I didn't make that decision?

None, which is why "cut him up and sell him for scrap" is not a viable default.
My evidence is the evidence that you didn't opt either way in this opt out system. Presumably, you were given a form at one time, likely when you were renewing a government ID of some sort, and at that time, you chose to not check a box.

I am happy to allow for special dispensation if you weren't provided with an opt out form at any time in your life. If you were provided with such a form, and you didn't decide to opt out, you.... wait for it.... didn't make the decision to opt out, and we have evidence of that.

Quote:

I am not "the corpse". I am the human individual that owns that body, and my property rights do not cease upon its expiration.
Once you're dead, you're not a "human individual" that owns anything, and your property rights do in fact cease upon your personal expiration. Every last bit of property that you own transfers to your estate, which is not you and not a human individual even if it has some kind of legal status.
  #57  
Old 09-13-2019, 08:45 AM
Small Clanger is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 2,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti
You can stop calling it "donation" if your idea is to compel people to "donate" their organs under pain of death for non-compliance.
Huh? Seriously. What on earth do you mean by this?

No-one is suggesting killing people for parts (animals, at some point perhaps). Transplant teams have to wait for what Greg House calls "donor weather" (wet-weather motorcyclists make excellent donors... see below).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti
If the heart is beating and the lungs are drawing breath, then the person is not "dead".
Brain-dead has been a legally accepted definition of "dead" for decades. Clearly really dead organs are no use, the body needs to be oxygenating and pumping blood to keep the useful bits alive.

I've been carrying a donor card* in my wallet for over 30 years. I guess I can free up a slot now.


* Although I don't know how many of my body parts would make the grade. Corneas maybe?
  #58  
Old 09-13-2019, 08:58 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
I am not "the corpse". I am the human individual that owns that body, and my property rights do not cease upon its expiration.
And how exactly are you going to exercise those rights once you're dead? Some kind of pre-death directive I presume, and why shouldn't an opt-out be part of that?

All that's changing here is the default potential disposition of some of your organs in the relatively rare event that you happen to match up, AND your family agrees to it (according to the NHS website, families will still be consulted). Basically everyone's going to be asked to refuse, rather than assent.

Beyond that, you seem to be missing the fundamental point that those property rights only go so far. The state (in the generic sense) retains the right to do a lot of stuff that's fairly one-sided- they can deprive you of your life if you've committed certain crimes, they can compel you to fight on their behalf, they can take your property in cases of eminent domain, they can require easements, etc...

Switching the organ donor program from opt-in to opt-out is small potatoes. I suspect that even if everyone were to not opt out, it would still be a relatively small number of people who end up donors.

And finally, it seems like an extraordinarily obstinate philosophical point to essentially refuse thousands of people potentially life-saving organs that can no longer be used, just because you are pissy about maintaining some sort of control over them from beyond the grave.
  #59  
Old 09-13-2019, 11:28 AM
Isosleepy's Avatar
Isosleepy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,804
The notion that, in Smapti’s view, a cadaver has more rights than a living human in 1859’s Alabama did, invites dissecting (see what I did there?) which cannot appropriately done in this forum.
  #60  
Old 09-13-2019, 12:34 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
You can stop calling it "donation" if your idea is to compel people to "donate" their organs under pain of death for non-compliance.

I guess "compulsory organ harvesting" doesn't sound as good in the promos.
It’s not compulsory. You can opt out. So just do that. Problem solved
  #61  
Old 09-13-2019, 01:54 PM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 85,594
I've long thought that the U.S. should shift to a presumption of consent for organ donation, with an opt-out option and, say, two years' notice ahead of time and plenty of PSAs about it. Nobody should die while waiting for an organ to become available for a life-saving transplant.
  #62  
Old 09-13-2019, 02:05 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
as I am doing when I advocate against for-profit organ harvesting.
Why do you hate capitalism? You some kind of socialist now?
  #63  
Old 09-13-2019, 02:08 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
I am not "the corpse". I am the human individual that owns that body, and my property rights do not cease upon its expiration.
Yes, they do. You're simply wrong about the facts regarding this.

If you had written "I don't think my property rights should cease upon my death", nobody could say you were wrong, but that isn't what you said, is it?
  #64  
Old 09-13-2019, 02:19 PM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rural Western PA
Posts: 32,776
Smapti: we won't be around all that much longer. If I die before you, it'd be great if you could benefit from the shell I leave behind. If you do not want to match my offer, that's cool, I understand. But how's about a little flexibility on the opt-out thing? I'm sure it can be developed in a way to ensure that your choice will be respected.
  #65  
Old 09-13-2019, 02:56 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 325
I just checked how to opt out using the website linked to in the OP. Man, it couldn’t possibly be simpler. Literally all you have to do is click ‘Opt Out’ and then put in your name and address. Takes less than 60 seconds. If you’re really so het up about it, you have zero excuse for failing to opt out.
  #66  
Old 09-13-2019, 03:03 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Bullshit.

No horseshit. Which made my garden flourish.
  #67  
Old 09-13-2019, 03:08 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post

Switching the organ donor program from opt-in to opt-out is small potatoes. I suspect that even if everyone were to not opt out, it would still be a relatively small number of people who end up donors.
It may be true that a small number of people will end up as donors. But the pool pf potential donors grows significantly.

In my daughter's behavioral economics class, she shows a chart of Europe with the percentage of people in the donor pool for each country. There are massive differences. It turns out the only factor explaining this is opt-in versus opt-out.

The default position on something is very important, not just because people are lazy, but because the default is used as a signal for what society expects.
  #68  
Old 09-13-2019, 03:11 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
I'd agree that you have the right to believe those things and to advocate for them, as I am doing when I advocate against for-profit organ harvesting.
You might want to stop getting your information from bad 1980s scifi novels.
And I hope for your sake that if you ever need a heart or a kidney the potential donor doesn't share your views.
  #69  
Old 09-13-2019, 04:16 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,032
While I have some queasiness with an opt-out system, it IS a system where if you don't want to be a donor you can declare that. You still have a choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
*I'm rather certain my wife won't follow my wishes for my body to be dumped in a national park for the wolves.
It may not be legal for her to do that.

You could, however, donate your body to a body farm where not only would various scavengers be able to dine upon it and return you to nature in a very natural manner, but you might well aid both science and law enforcement forensics. One difficulty for some reading this is that at present body farms only exist in the US and Australia.
  #70  
Old 09-13-2019, 04:25 PM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
I just checked how to opt out using the website linked to in the OP. Man, it couldn’t possibly be simpler. Literally all you have to do is click ‘Opt Out’ and then put in your name and address. Takes less than 60 seconds. If you’re really so het up about it, you have zero excuse for failing to opt out.
It's exactly as easy to opt in, so there's no reason to change the status quo in a way that negatively impacts millions of people's human rights.
  #71  
Old 09-13-2019, 04:25 PM
Isosleepy's Avatar
Isosleepy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
While I have some queasiness with an opt-out system, it IS a system where if you don't want to be a donor you can declare that. You still have a choice.


It may not be legal for her to do that.

You could, however, donate your body to a body farm where not only would various scavengers be able to dine upon it and return you to nature in a very natural manner, but you might well aid both science and law enforcement forensics. One difficulty for some reading this is that at present body farms only exist in the US and Australia.
And, added bonus, you’d get to creep people the f::ck out: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.new...9113%3Famp%3D1
  #72  
Old 09-13-2019, 07:55 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
It's exactly as easy to opt in, so there's no reason to change the status quo in a way that negatively impacts millions of people's human rights.
Changing it to opt out will make people who don't care at all about this issue more likely to be donors, and that saves lives.
Why you are so against saving the life of a living person at - maybe - the expense of a dead person?
We evict dead people from their homes. You upset about that also?
  #73  
Old 09-13-2019, 08:02 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
You could, however, donate your body to a body farm where not only would various scavengers be able to dine upon it and return you to nature in a very natural manner, but you might well aid both science and law enforcement forensics. One difficulty for some reading this is that at present body farms only exist in the US and Australia.
Screw that! I wanna be part of a wolf! It's my right!
  #74  
Old 09-13-2019, 08:06 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
You can stop calling it "donation" if your idea is to compel people to "donate" their organs under pain of death for non-compliance.

I guess "compulsory organ harvesting" doesn't sound as good in the promos.
Let's go to the quarry and throw stuff down there what the fuck?
  #75  
Old 09-13-2019, 08:30 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
It's exactly as easy to opt in, so there's no reason to change the status quo in a way that negatively impacts millions of people's human rights.
1) As has been repeatedly explained to you, you’ve no “right” to your organs after you die.

2) Doing it this way results in fewer people dying on transplant lists. If it’s as easy to opt out as it is to opt in, we might as well do it this way. Don’t like it? Opt out.

3) Taking this out of the realm of the theoretical and philosophical, it’s abundantly clear that if such a system was ever introduced in the US, you would opt out at the very first possible opportunity. Like, you’d probably break a land speed record rushing to your computer to opt out. And that’s fine. It’s your choice. However, since countries with ‘opt out’ programs see a rise in the supply of donor organs and a corresponding drop in waiting lists, in some small way, your odds of long term survival will improve. Given that you absolutely positively 100% definitely will opt out immediately at the first possible millisecond, why are you against this? I get the philosophical objection, but what’s your practical objection? You’d be safe from having your organs donated against your will, because you’d opt out immediately, and if ever you needed an organ you’d find yourself on a shorter waiting list. So why does this upset you so much? In practise it can only benefit you.

4) Just as an aside, I’ve often thought that (with some obvious common sense exceptions for kids and such) only people on the organ donor list should have the right to receive organs if they need them. Everyone else can just go die. Too bad, so sad. Should’ve opted in when you had the chance etc... I’d be interested to hear what you’d do if such a system was ever implemented in the US.
  #76  
Old 09-13-2019, 09:16 PM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post

4) Just as an aside, I’ve often thought that (with some obvious common sense exceptions for kids and such) only people on the organ donor list should have the right to receive organs if they need them. Everyone else can just go die. Too bad, so sad. Should’ve opted in when you had the chance etc...
Thank you for illustrating my point. You and yours don't want to encourage more people to voluntarily give their organs to those in need - you want to threaten them into obedience by taking away their right to medical care, so that when someone decided they're "dead" you can chop them up and sell their parts for profit to the other people you've blackmailed into obedience.

It's only a stone's throw from there to you lying in your hospital bed after a minor surgery when a nurse comes in and informs you that the governor needs a new heart and you're compatible, so the attending physician has declared you dead and they'll be performing the extraction in ten minutes.

Last edited by Smapti; 09-13-2019 at 09:21 PM.
  #77  
Old 09-13-2019, 10:28 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
I determine that it is wrong because it is not harmonious with my understanding of what the law should be.
So in other words, if it doesn't meet how YOU feel about the law, then it's suddenly wrong?


Quote:
Do I not have the right to declare, via my will and my estate, the means by which my body should be disposed of? This is evidence that I, the person and the will, am legally distinct from the body I inhabit.
Well, considering what you've said about slavery or the civil rights movement....

So according to your logic then no, having the right to your body after you die, will NOT be moral, at least not in the UK.

(Can't have your cake and eat it too, Smapti)
  #78  
Old 09-13-2019, 10:31 PM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 85,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
...Just as an aside, I’ve often thought that (with some obvious common sense exceptions for kids and such) only people on the organ donor list should have the right to receive organs if they need them. Everyone else can just go die. Too bad, so sad. Should’ve opted in when you had the chance etc....
There is a certain poetic justice to it.
  #79  
Old 09-13-2019, 10:31 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
Thank you for illustrating my point. You and yours don't want to encourage more people to voluntarily give their organs to those in need - you want to threaten them into obedience by taking away their right to medical care, so that when someone decided they're "dead" you can chop them up and sell their parts for profit to the other people you've blackmailed into obedience.
If you’re not willing to donate your organs, why should you receive any? I note you didn’t actually answer this question. You just used it as a jumping off point for a massive rant that has absolutely nothing to do with what I actually wrote.

And what’s this bullshit about “selling” them? You’re literally the first person to bring money into this. That’s just some crazy projection on your part.

Quote:
It's only a stone's throw from there to you lying in your hospital bed after a minor surgery when a nurse comes in and informs you that the governor needs a new heart and you're compatible, so the attending physician has declared you dead and they'll be performing the extraction in ten minutes.
Okay, this should be good. Kindly elucidate, step by step, precisely how you get from “Only registered donors should receive organs” to “The governor needs a new heart so now we’ve fixed your hernia we’re going to kill you”.
  #80  
Old 09-13-2019, 11:22 PM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
If you’re not willing to donate your organs, why should you receive any? I note you didn’t actually answer this question. You just used it as a jumping off point for a massive rant that has absolutely nothing to do with what I actually wrote.
A "donation", by definition, is not contingent on what one has done in the past. You're basically suggesting that unless someone has personally fed and housed the homeless, they should be allowed to go hungry if they become homeless themselves.

Quote:
And what’s this bullshit about “selling” them? You’re literally the first person to bring money into this. That’s just some crazy projection on your part.
I am not aware of medical institutions that perform organ transplants for free. Are you?


Quote:
Okay, this should be good. Kindly elucidate, step by step, precisely how you get from “Only registered donors should receive organs” to “The governor needs a new heart so now we’ve fixed your hernia we’re going to kill you”.
Your argument for opt-out is that it increases organ availability.

So, therefore, you'd have even better availability if there's no option at all and everyone is automatically a donor no matter what.

And once it's assumed that everyone's organs are up for grabs, well, if one person's parts can save three lives, then it's simply selfish of them to keep them to themselves, aren't they? They should be encouraged to give up their own life for the needs of the many.

And once that's acceptable, well, why ask for someone's permission before euthanizing them to save others, especially if that person is far more valuable to society? Surely President Trump's life is more valuable than that of some blue collar schlub who's too lazy and stubborn to realize that his organs are destined for a greater purpose.
  #81  
Old 09-13-2019, 11:51 PM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
So in other words, if it doesn't meet how YOU feel about the law, then it's suddenly wrong?




Well, considering what you've said about slavery or the civil rights movement....

So according to your logic then no, having the right to your body after you die, will NOT be moral, at least not in the UK.

(Can't have your cake and eat it too, Smapti)
The law should be obeyed. That doesn't mean that a law can never be questioned or that nobody can ever make an effort to change it. All I stated there is that violence and disobedience are not valid methods of protest.
  #82  
Old 09-13-2019, 11:55 PM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
Changing it to opt out will make people who don't care at all about this issue more likely to be donors, and that saves lives.

]Why you are so against saving the life of a living person at - maybe - the expense of a dead person?
I don't consider it ethical to cut someone up for parts who hasn't made a conscious and affirmative decision, free of duress, that that's what they want done to them when they're dying or dead.

Quote:
We evict dead people from their homes. You upset about that also?
In our system, we respect the wishes of the dead in regards to the disposition of their property as informed by their will and their estate. I see no reason why one's most intimate and inalienable piece of property, their own body, should be treated with less regard.
  #83  
Old 09-14-2019, 12:10 AM
needscoffee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 7,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
Thank you for illustrating my point. You and yours don't want to encourage more people to voluntarily give their organs to those in need - you want to threaten them into obedience by taking away their right to medical care, so that when someone decided they're "dead" you can chop them up and sell their parts for profit to the other people you've blackmailed into obedience.

It's only a stone's throw from there to you lying in your hospital bed after a minor surgery when a nurse comes in and informs you that the governor needs a new heart and you're compatible, so the attending physician has declared you dead and they'll be performing the extraction in ten minutes.
This can just as easily happen now with opt-in donations. In fact, it's MORE likely to happen now, because of the scarcity of organs making them that much more valuable.
  #84  
Old 09-14-2019, 12:30 AM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SF
Posts: 4,626
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
None, which is why "cut him up and sell him for scrap" is not a viable default.
The true default is that your dead body lays where you died and decomposes. But modern science has developed much, much more productive uses of dead bodies. They discovered that sometimes organs from the dead can be used to save the lives of the injured and sick. Pretty much everyone agrees that that's a far better use then letting the organs rot.

Oh... what's that? You want a third option? You want the option to cremate or bury them with all of their dead organs which are now useless to a them? Um. I guess you can do that. But why would you?

Some people bury treasure, too. Put it away so no one else can have it. Difference is: those people dig the treasure up later and use it. Dead people and their dead organs? Not so much.
  #85  
Old 09-14-2019, 12:44 AM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
I don't consider it ethical to cut someone up for parts who hasn't made a conscious and affirmative decision, free of duress, that that's what they want done to them when they're dying or dead.



In our system, we respect the wishes of the dead in regards to the disposition of their property as informed by their will and their estate. I see no reason why one's most intimate and inalienable piece of property, their own body, should be treated with less regard.
Only because it might affect you, I suspect. When others protest injustices going on, your response is generally, "it's the law, therefore, it's moral."

I don't think I have EVER seen you say anything else. You said the moral thing for slaves to do was to obey their masters -- you thought that was the most important thing to do. Yet here, you're not saying, "well, if it's opt-in, and that's the law, that's the moral thing to do -- follow the law." No no no no.

Last edited by Guinastasia; 09-14-2019 at 12:44 AM.
  #86  
Old 09-14-2019, 01:34 AM
PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 3,563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
I am not aware of medical institutions that perform organ transplants for free. Are you?
Yes: in the UK, which is where this discussion stems from (and, no, I'm not saying that the hospitals and doctors magically live on air, of course the money comes from somewhere, but it comes in block budgets that do not create financial incentives or disincentives for any particular clinical decision in any individual case).
  #87  
Old 09-14-2019, 02:29 AM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
Only because it might affect you, I suspect. When others protest injustices going on, your response is generally, "it's the law, therefore, it's moral."

I don't think I have EVER seen you say anything else. You said the moral thing for slaves to do was to obey their masters -- you thought that was the most important thing to do. Yet here, you're not saying, "well, if it's opt-in, and that's the law, that's the moral thing to do -- follow the law." No no no no.
If the law is that organ donations are opt-out (which is what I assume you meant to say), then that is the law and it should be followed. You're not going to see me burning my driver's license or handcuffing myself to the front door of a hospital because I disagree with organ donation policies.

I will continue to disagree with it and I would advocate for a return to opt-in, but if that's the law, then that's the law.
  #88  
Old 09-14-2019, 02:33 AM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by I Love Me, Vol. I View Post
The true default is that your dead body lays where you died and decomposes. But modern science has developed much, much more productive uses of dead bodies. They discovered that sometimes organs from the dead can be used to save the lives of the injured and sick. Pretty much everyone agrees that that's a far better use then letting the organs rot.
And that's great, but the decision of whether or not to do that needs to be made by the individual, and it needs to be a conscious, affirmative decision free of duress. I wouldn't feel comfortable accepting a transplant from someone whose organs were only harvested because they were "lazy" about opting out, or who only became a donor for fear of being denied medical care if they needed a transplant. And despite all the naked disdain for non-donors that's running rampant in this thread, I suspect you wouldn't either.

Quote:
Oh... what's that? You want a third option? You want the option to cremate or bury them with all of their dead organs which are now useless to a them? Um. I guess you can do that. But why would you?
Again, that's the individual's choice to make. My mother, for example, has made it clear to me that when she dies, she wants to be cremated intact and her ashes scattered at a location which is significant to her. It's not my place to question her wishes, and I would feel guilty if I didn't do my utmost to carry it out for her.
  #89  
Old 09-14-2019, 02:44 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
I don't consider it ethical to cut someone up for parts who hasn't made a conscious and affirmative decision, free of duress, that that's what they want done to them when they're dying or dead.
What if they don't give a shit, as evidenced by them not opting in or opting out specifically? And public campaign to get people to opt in you would probably call duress.

Quote:
In our system, we respect the wishes of the dead in regards to the disposition of their property as informed by their will and their estate. I see no reason why one's most intimate and inalienable piece of property, their own body, should be treated with less regard.
But if someone dies without a will - in other words not opting in to providing information about how to divide ones estate - there are default heirs. Ones the decedent might not want to inherit. So same thing, really.

I'm fine with making opting out as easy as opting is today, if not easier. But there has been plenty of research on defaults, and I'm sure that there will still be a big increase in available organs to save lives.
  #90  
Old 09-14-2019, 02:57 AM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
What if they don't give a shit, as evidenced by them not opting in or opting out specifically?
Then it should be assumed that they've opted out.

Quote:
And public campaign to get people to opt in you would probably call duress.
When I say "duress" here, I'm referring specifically to the "if you opt out then you should be ineligible for an organ transplant" idea that inevitably gets bandied about in any of these types of threads. If you want to encourage people to opt in and promote it publicly, go for it. "Become an organ donor or we'll let you die if you get sick" isn't encouragement, it's blackmail.
  #91  
Old 09-14-2019, 02:58 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
And that's great, but the decision of whether or not to do that needs to be made by the individual, and it needs to be a conscious, affirmative decision free of duress. I wouldn't feel comfortable accepting a transplant from someone whose organs were only harvested because they were "lazy" about opting out, or who only became a donor for fear of being denied medical care if they needed a transplant. And despite all the naked disdain for non-donors that's running rampant in this thread, I suspect you wouldn't either.
But with an opt-in policy many people are not allowing their organs to be donated without a conscious decision on their part.
Since opting out would be done when renewing a drivers license or some such, there would be no coercion and no pressure. The person making the decision won't be in a hospital. With a plentiful supply of donors there would a lot less incentive for a doctor to ask if a dying person would be willing to donate. That can be done without coercion - it's not like they are going to refuse treatment. Given that the person is dying, it won't make much difference anyway.

But I have a real easy solution. Someone who has felt coerced into opting in can smoke, drink and sit on their butts - and no one will want their damn organs.
  #92  
Old 09-14-2019, 03:02 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
Then it should be assumed that they've opted out.
But they are just as likely to be fine with donating - the small number of default opt outs who don't opt out when opt in is made default shows that.

Quote:
When I say "duress" here, I'm referring specifically to the "if you opt out then you should be ineligible for an organ transplant" idea that inevitably gets bandied about in any of these types of threads. If you want to encourage people to opt in and promote it publicly, go for it. "Become an organ donor or we'll let you die if you get sick" isn't encouragement, it's blackmail.
I'm not for that - bad PR - but I see the point. Your analogy is flawed - it would be more like someone who votes against food stamps or refuses to pay taxes that pay for food stamps being banned from getting food stamps at some point.
But to be sure - a big campaign, with leaflets inserted into license renewals for opting in would be fine with you.
  #93  
Old 09-14-2019, 03:06 AM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
But with an opt-in policy many people are not allowing their organs to be donated without a conscious decision on their part.
Since opting out would be done when renewing a drivers license or some such, there would be no coercion and no pressure.
That's already how opting in is done in every state I've lived in. When you're filling out your form to get or renew your ID/license, you fill in the yes or the no on the "Do you wish to be an organ donor?" question.

Quote:
The person making the decision won't be in a hospital. With a plentiful supply of donors there would a lot less incentive for a doctor to ask if a dying person would be willing to donate. That can be done without coercion - it's not like they are going to refuse treatment. Given that the person is dying, it won't make much difference anyway.
As suggested upthread;

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
I’ve often thought that (with some obvious common sense exceptions for kids and such) only people on the organ donor list should have the right to receive organs if they need them. Everyone else can just go die. Too bad, so sad. Should’ve opted in when you had the chance etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo View Post
I'd like to have an opt-out system, but whether the system is opt-out or opt-in, I've always believed that one good way to deal with the issue is precisely a system in which recipients are prioritized based on their decision about donation. If you believe that organ donation is a useful and valuable procedure, and that it benefits society as a whole, then you can make your own organs available, and in return you will get access to available organs if and when you need them.

Someone who does not want to donate their organs might have perfectly good reasons for making that decision. Their reasons might be religious; they might be personal and moral; they might be pragmatic. But if you have those reasons, then I believe that it's reasonable for society to ask you to be consistent in your reasoning. If you have objections to the system of organ donation when you are the donor, you should be willing to forego some of your privileges as a recipient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by One And Only Wanderers View Post
I've thought for years that it should be opt-out rather than opt-in. Out of interest, can people who are opted-out still receive an organ transplant?
I like the way you think.
I suggest you take that up with your "allies" who think blackmailing people for their organs is a fantastic idea.
  #94  
Old 09-14-2019, 03:13 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Just as an aside, I’ve often thought that (with some obvious common sense exceptions for kids and such) only people on the organ donor list should have the right to receive organs if they need them. Everyone else can just go die. Too bad, so sad. Should’ve opted in when you had the chance etc... I’d be interested to hear what you’d do if such a system was ever implemented in the US.
Whenever this comes up I always wonder where people who can't donate - cancer history, some viral disease, other anomaly - would stand in such a system? Unable to contribute means you can't get on the list?
  #95  
Old 09-14-2019, 04:43 AM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Whenever this comes up I always wonder where people who can't donate - cancer history, some viral disease, other anomaly - would stand in such a system? Unable to contribute means you can't get on the list?
IMO, absolutely not. If you have a valid reason for not donating (basically, anything apart from “I don’ wanna!”) then you should be eligible. I just want to try and weed out the Smaptis of the world who’d gladly take a donor organ but wouldn’t deign to donate their own and pay it forward.
  #96  
Old 09-14-2019, 04:51 AM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
I just want to try and weed out the Smaptis of the world who’d gladly take a donor organ but wouldn’t deign to donate their own and pay it forward.
"Paying it forward" is not and should never be a condition of receiving charity. The entire point of charity is that you're giving without expecting anything in return.

The entire idea is bollocks anyway - anyone who's in a condition to need an organ is probably not going to be fit enough to have any suitable for donation. This has nothing to do with the greater good and everything to do with threatening people into compliance because you're afraid you won't be able to get an organ unless you force someone to give it to you.

Last edited by Smapti; 09-14-2019 at 04:53 AM.
  #97  
Old 09-14-2019, 05:13 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
The entire idea is bollocks anyway - anyone who's in a condition to need an organ is probably not going to be fit enough to have any suitable for donation. This has nothing to do with the greater good and everything to do with threatening people into compliance because you're afraid you won't be able to get an organ unless you force someone to give it to you.
Dude, you're dead: you're not going to put up much of a fight. Also, once you're dead, you're not a "someone" anymore, you're a "something".

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 09-14-2019 at 05:13 AM.
  #98  
Old 09-14-2019, 06:54 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
If the heart is beating and the lungs are drawing breath, then the person is not "dead".
Wait what?

Brain death is death. If your brain is dead, it doesn't matter how good your heart is working - you're dead. You're not coming back. I thought we learned this lesson a decade and change ago when we hooked a dead woman up to machines and had a big stupid fight over whether or not we could let her heart stop beating.

Anyways, let's not get too bogged down in weird philosophical arguments about ownership that don't actually matter in checks notes 100% of cases. There's a tradeoff here - for people who don't care enough to carry around a card or register their will with the required authorities, do we want to:

A) Sometimes violate their wish, as dead people, to not have what were formerly their organs removed
B) Sometimes ignores their wish, as dead people, to have their organs go on to save lives, and let a lot of people who would otherwise live die

This is one of the easiest tradeoffs in the history of the world. In one case, we respect the wishes of someone who is, by definition, already dead. In the other case, we save someone's life. And since we know that there are real, consistent biases that consistently lead to far more people being willing to donate than being willing to go through the work to list themselves as donors, it feels even easier.

Frankly, I don't care what corpses want. I will gladly respect the hell out of your sovereignty while you're alive; once you're dead, there is no amount of comfort in the world that could make anything better for you - you are dead. The needs of the living outweigh the superstitious whims of the dead every single time.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 09-14-2019 at 06:56 AM.
  #99  
Old 09-14-2019, 07:00 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,544
Is there any evidence that more than a tiny minority feel the same way as Smapti? If not, then I'm entirely comfortable ignoring such a harmful, ridiculous, anti scientific, and mostly support free view.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #100  
Old 09-14-2019, 08:45 AM
mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Whenever this comes up I always wonder where people who can't donate - cancer history, some viral disease, other anomaly - would stand in such a system? Unable to contribute means you can't get on the list?
As I said in my post (#44), my system would supply organs even for people aren't donors, but donors would get first priority.

I would make exceptions for children, and for the types of people you mention. The thing is that, if we can get more people involved in the system, all of this could be moot because we'd be far less likely to end up with organ shortages.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:31 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017