While I continue to oppose this idea, Smapti, I think you’re misunderstanding what “first do no harm” means. It applies to treatment and means the physician should be careful not to make things worse by intervening. My understanding is that it wouldn’t apply to declining to treat a patient, since there are already time physicians can say they don’t think treatment is appropriate.
I don’t think that has been demonstrated at all. The physician who is determining death is NEVER supposed to be a member of the procurement team. They are not supposed to even be in the room. In the (questionably cited) story you linked to upthread, the physicians and hospital were acting clearly outside of the rules and protocols.
Surgeon Accused of Speeding a Death to Get Organs
More here:
Doctor Cleared of Harming Man to Obtain Organs
As for the WashPo article you linked, it was totally debunked.
Concerns Over New Organ Donor Guidelines Overblown
I think there’s a bit of confusion about organ donation after brain death (the majority of donations) and organ donation after cardiac death (relatively new and where the controversy resides). Cardiac death donations tend to be performed more locally (donor and recipient in the same hospital or geographic area) as they are more time sensitive (in order to maintain perfusion of the organs), therefore there is more potential for conflict of interests.
I’m all for presumed opt-in for organ donation after brain death. As for cardiac death donation I think explicit opt-in is a reasonable compromise - since these represent ~6% of all organ donations (a very small fraction) and are more ethically fraught. I agree with Broomstick, if we go with a presumed opt-in system then distribution within the US healthcare system will need some reform to ensure equitable access for all, not just for who can afford it or has insurance coverage.
I have no rights. My heirs have rights - the still living one. If you die and there are no heirs, who gets the money? Hint - it is not buried with you.
I forgot to mention trusts, which are still not the possessions of dead people. When my father died, I got full trusteeship of his trust, He and the trust are different, in fact the trust had to get a new taxpayer id, we couldn’t use his SSN. You can express wishes about what happens after you die - which is what opt out is all about - but you have no rights.
Are you equally angry about relatives stopping a donation the deceased wished to make?
But it ought to be! Because if it isn’t, then we’ll be living in a totalitarian country soon enough. Like Spain and Sweden.
Free up the Streets for whitelabcoat Battalions.
Free up the Streets for Organharvestmann!
Why? Because they “opt” to do so. It is a choice. Similarly, if for some reason you care so very much about some carcass you can “opt” to make it unavailable for saving lives. Rather heartless and selfish, but it’d be your choice. But if you don’t care enough to bother opting out then---- well, then apparently you don’t care what happens to your leftover meat sack.
This is a silly distinction to make. If it makes things simpler, what if we were to say organs are automatically “not available in the first place” to those who opt out? Would that make it better? What if a group of people got together and decided they would use their undeniable rights to decide they will make their organs available for donation after death, but only to certain people. Surely that’s their right, right? So what if those “certain people” comprised members of that group? And what if that group were nationwide, including every person who is either unselfish enough (and yes, you are selfish) to donate their organs or scared enough of needing one that they want to be part of this “organ pool”? I don’t know your politics but that would seem compatible with the individualistic attitude you appear to have. If you disagree, I’d be interested to know why.
Reading your paranoid writings about “the state”, I’m really not sure if you misunderstand how the system works or if you’re deliberately creating misleading images. Assuming the latter, it really is not “the state” who is an actor here. “The state” might make the laws, but it is hospital staff who act according to them. “The state” doesn’t harvest your organs any more than it kills you if you’re shot legally by any other citizen according to some “stand your ground” law. Private citizens acting according to what the law permits is not the same as the state acting.
You also seem grossly misinformed on the realities of death. You do realize there is no clear line between life and death, don’t you? When you are first “dead” you are rarely actually completely dead but simply dying and nothing can be done. Your cells don’t all simultaneously stop working at the moment of “death” and your brain may keep functioning at some basic level even when there is no consciousness and never will be again. Being kept on life support with no hope of regaining consciousness is as close to being alive as a cold corpse made to dance on strings is.
Ok. If I recall I was just presenting a scenario for marley23 where we can all agree a dead body has value regardless of it’s use as components for the living.
This explains so much. There’s no more point arguing with someone who believes something like this. Enjoy your organs after your dead.
Come to think of it, come the zombie uprising, don’t give them brains, give them cash. That should satisfy them.
Or maybe the opposite, a discount of 5 bucks for donating your organs.
But in this case, whose rights? You don’t have any right on your dead body, since you’re dead. It isn’t obvious to me that your relatives should have such rights.
However, I’m going to mention something that has been pointed out in a previous similar debate : in the USA, apparently, people without a medical coverage can’t get a transplant (because the required lifelong follow-up isn’t possible). If this is correct, then it’s a strong argument against an opt-out system, in my opinion. If not everybody can benefit from the system, then it’s difficult to argue that everybody should make a donation.
For the record, when France had an opt-out system 'in fact it might still be an opt-out system, for all I know), it still wasn’t implemented because doctors found highly difficult to impose it to a firmly opposed family. In fact it seems they they typically wouldn’t impose it even if the deceased had made his will to donate his organs clear, when the family was still opposed. They would argue, but not compell.
When living in New Zealand it was opt in - you were explicitly asked during your driver’s licensing procedure if you wanted to donate (since most organs came from accidents it made sense)
In Singapore we have HOTA (Human Organs Transplant Act). Organ donation was made the default a few years back, since then I have not heard one complaint.
One thing we do have here, Malay Muslems are by default, opted out (yes, race is recorded at birth here, so it can be done), although there has been a campaign or two to get more to opt in.
I support “opt in” being the default, whereby you must actively opt out. And there has been plenty of factual information provided here that opt out is the objectively the better, and preferred, option
This seems at odds with your generally expressed notions that one should unquestioningly obey the state in all things.
I guess the only moral kidney is my kidney or something.
What if you come back as a zombie and you want your organs?
With that said, this argument is silly.
We know the effects of opt out versus opt in (otherwise people wouldn’t be in a huff about this).
We know that all the ethical concerns about organ donation disappear if most people become organ donors because organs are no longer rare enough for people to act unethically.
We know that you only need one kidney to live here on earth so it reasonable to assume that you will not need more tahn one kidney to live in heavan.
We know that the real shortage in organs is in kidneys.
So making harvesting one kidney the default. You can opt out. You can also opt in to donating all the rest of your organs too.
Why? Why not call it a “death in this country tax”?
you can’t opt out of taxes
My point exactly. We have a chronic kidney shortage. You’re not doing anything with it after you die. Why shouldn’t the government say “this is the tax for dying in this country”?
This is simple. you need an incentive. The cremation/ burial costs are borne by whoever is grabbing and claiming the parts. there is a hell of a lot of money being made with transplants. The same statute that allows a hospital to harvest my kidneys, eyes, heart, liver, skin etc ( that is a ton of money) with an automatic ‘opt in’ automatically ‘opts in’ to cover the cost of a low end cremation or burial.
Why in hell is the family or the estate responsible for disposal, consistent with statutory requirements, when someone else is claiming the right to profit from the body? Save lives, sure, but you don’t get the right to a dumpster dive, unless you are willing to pay for the garbage pick-up.
(I am going to have real trouble with this five minute rule for editing)
when I say a ton of money, I am talking tens of thousands of dollars in health care profits from these transplants.