I think we should make harvesting of organs mandatory

Great Debates
1

Here’s where I’m coming from:

  1. Dead people should have no rights

  2. Dead people are property of the family, however the fashion of disposal is already regulated (can’t bury Uncle Bob in your front yard or leave his corpse on the porch to scare away solicitors)

  3. Actual live people can be helped by the organs of dead people, trumping the property rights of the family and the non-existent rights of the dead

  4. Therefore, it is a greater societal good to limit the rights of the living family members and the dead in order to help live people

  5. Rights are already limited, so arguments sayin “you can’t limit survivors’ rights arbitrarily” is moot. They are already limited, the argument should be why this new limitation is going overboard or not

As an atheist, I’m not really that worried about the religious aspect of things. We already give religious exemptions for many reason so anybody who chimes in with “but my religions specifically forbids that” will either get the “even Mormons aren’t allowed polygamy” or “fine, you can have an exemptions like you do with taxes” retort

It’s no secret that in the US, thousands of people are waiting for organs everyday and that there is a severe lack of organ donation. Mandatory harvesting of organs seems like a drastic step, and it will be, at first. But keep at it long enough and people will get used to it, just like they get used to the fact that cyclists have to wear helmets and drivers have to wear seat belts. You can argue that those things are wrong, but that’s not the point of this topic. Lots of things are wrong, but why (if you disagree) would this specific change be wrong?

We’re saving real live people. This isn’t a vague “spending $X more would put Y number more cops on the streets and save Z number of lives”. This is tangible, qualitative stuff. Dave is dying and needs a liver. Thousands of people get killed everyday. At least one of those livers must be compatible for him. Why do you care more about this dead guy who will never need his liver again when Dave can use it?

I can see conservatives argue that this is big government. Perhaps, but isn’t a culture of life something they aspire to force upon everyone? Suicide is illegal, and euthanasia is attacked everywhere that allows it. And that is someone asserting their own rights, regardless of government intervention, to decide their destiny. And conservatives have issues with that? Secretly, I suspect, it’s a religious issue with them even if some of them don’t want to admit it. God supposedly gave us life and so we have to live, no matter what, is what I think they believe. However, I bring up the government vs. rights thing not as a “gotcha!” argument, but simply that there are 2 ways to look at it. I think that in this case, dead people wouldn’t give a damn about what happens the kidneys, so take them. The violation in rights is much less than the suffering of the living

Liberals may argue that society isn’t better off with such an intrusion into people’s personal lives. Yes, people may live, but at what cost? To that I say, at least they lived. And the cost is the archaic notion of desecrating the dead, which as an atheist, has no bearing. They’re dead forever and ever, they don’t have rights, they are like a piece of meat you buy from the butcher. Thus the dead lose nothing. And for all the flak we liberals get for trying to help the little guy, help the poor, the weak, the unpopular, tell me how you can look at a dying patient and a slab of flesh and see an equivalence? The grieving family is a third party to this. The government already tells them how they can dispose of their dead. This would be the same thing, except some organs are missing. I believe they need to get over their notion of the body being “whole”. What do you miss about a dead relative? Their presence, their wit, their laughter? Or their lungs, their kidneys, their gall bladder?

Also, I know that China harvests organs automatically from prisoners. And no, I don’t care what we’d have a more extreme policy than they would. I’m not interested in playing a game of Who’s got the Best law? I’m interested in helping the living by taking away rights from objects that I don’t believe deserve it. I think dead people only have such rights because it’s tacky and offensive for anyone to bring up this subject, so it’s not broached often

I do think there is a small concern over how quickly doctors would declare someone officially dead if this change were made. The fear is that doctors who know of a requirement for organs might prematurely declare someone dead and start harvesting without trying their best in order to keep that person alive. Of course, this happens today anyways. After all, people do donate their organs. And while there have been stories of such fears, they are few and far between. So I’m not worried about it, I don’t think that will become a problem. Also, consider that with more organs being available, doctors wouldn’t feel as much pressure to do such a preemptive declaration of death, so it may even help to stem them from jumping the gun. Plus, another benefit is that it may even stop the black market in organ thieving, if the urban legends were correct

Short version: Dead people shouldn’t have rights and living people do, so it’s better if the dead gave up their rights for the living to have a chance to survive.

2

This topic comes up every six months or so. But yes, it’s shockingly immoral that people would chose to put vitally needed organs into a hole in the ground to rot rather than give them to people whose lives will be vastly improved by them. I favor mandatory organ donation but since that’s pretty much an impossibility, I’d accept opt-out with assumed consent.

3

I agree that it seems a no-brainer in terms of expediency, but despite being what would be termed here a liberal, there’s something about handing this particular item of control over to government that makes me feel quite uncomfortable. I’m a registered organ donor myself, so it’s not that, either.

4

I’m with the OP and FinnAgain. Opt-out is more politically feasible, but in an ideal world I’d have the state take the choice away completely and mandate all viable organs be immediately harvested on death whenever possible.

5

It should be obvious: YogSosoth is trying to claim your body as government property.

6

That’s nice. But in the real world, such things DO need to be worried about. If you want your dream to come true, get rid of religion first. Then we can talk. :slight_smile:

7

Why shouldn’t your body become government property after you die? You’re no longer in it. Ethically it’s no worse for the government to allow doctors to clear out your cadaver for organs than it is for them send the cops to tow away an abandoned car. In fact, it’s a lot more ethical because mandatory organ donation inevitably saves innocent lives. What, specifically, is it about your dead flesh that is so very, very valuable?

Besides, your body is already largely government property. The rules concerning proper disposal of human remains are strict and inflexible, with steep penalties in place for breaking them.

8

You can have my organs when you pry them from my cold dead ribcage.

Wait, what?

9

The OP does foresee including an opt-out clause for certain religious groups. I think that’s sensible. We all know that religious fundamentalists would burn the earth to cinders rather than deviate from their interpretation of bronze aged dogma, so we might as well avoid that fight altogether.

10

Then why did he say he wouldn’t worry about it? Either you address the concerns of the religious or you don’t. I think that’s why I missed that part of the OP.

11

In this case, terminology is important. The ‘you’ that owns a body is functionally obliterated upon death. As long as it’s your body, the government has no claim to your organs. But when you no longer exist, all that’s left is a hunk of meat and it can be used to save multiple lives and substantially enrich the quality of life of those who aren’t going to be saved outright.

You’re essentially dealing with a linguistic fiction and letting it get in the way of public policy.

12

If you have yourself cremated, and scatter your ashes at sea, doesn’t that technically mean the government now owns your body? So long as you’re in coastal waters, anyway.

What about graveyards? Are graveyards privately owned, or state-run? Because, really, same deal there, it just takes a little longer.

13

If it were only so easy to know when somebody is dead.

14

I’ve already picked out a couple likely candidates for harvesting.:wink:

15

<insert obligatory Monty Python liver donor sketch here>

16

So… can we have your liver then?

17

No I’m not. I’m liberal, pro-choice, pro-euthanasia, pro-suicide for whatever fucking reason you want.

However, this is about dead bodies. Those don’t deserve rights. Why? Cause you’re dead and nothing we do to the body will ever affect you, ever.

If only it were that easy!

18

Do you think that wills should be done away with in general?

FWIW, I am currently an organ donor, but if there were any reasonable means of opt-out* with your system I would choose to do so, making it known to the parties that implemented such a system what the costs were.

Also, point 2 seems to be mostly false, though it depends on the state.

  • Even if there were no explicit opt-out, there are likely to be loopholes in the process that effectively make it impossible to harvest the organs.
19

I agree completely. I think that withholding your corpse from organ donation is the height of selfishness.

However, this idea (opt-out) always goes over like a lead balloon whenever it comes up. I honestly don’t understand what the big deal is.

20

One point.

One complaint about this organ donor thingy is that some folks are afraid people will be declared dead early so that organs may be harvested.

It seems possible to me that if organ donation was nearly a requirement that particular fear would no longer be an issue because you’d probably have more organs than you needed and there would be no need to rush dieing people along so to speak.