There’s nothing civilized about leaving people to die for your silly superstitions, when you could help save their lives at no cost to yourself. People who willingly choose not to donate aren’t worthy of calling themselves human.
What about them? Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
There’s nothing civilized about mutilating a corpse against the wishes of the family or former human being.
ETA: my own organs would not be accepted anyway, I might as well opt out and save the time of testing me.
But that’s totally not relevant to the moral/ethical issue underlying the discussion.
Stop being lazy and opt in.
Stop being lazy and opt in.
Stop being lazy and opt in.
Stop being lazy and opt in.
Nothing else to see here, move on.
The former human being has not expressed a preference here. That is the whole point. If they express a preference against donating, their organs won’t be used. It is a system where if people do not take an easy step to opt out, they are presumed to be OK with posthumous donation. And here we go again with the ‘corpse mutilating’ and ‘chopping the corpse into bits.’
I did, years ago. There’s still a shortage of donor organs, partly because people can’t be assed to check a box. Now what?
Advertising.
Seriously.
If people can be convinced to pay money for a video game that spies on them, organ donation should be no problem.
Have the hot chick/guy of the day say how much they would never sleep with someone who wasn’t a donor.
If it’s too much effort to check a box to opt out, then we must assume one doesn’t actually prioritize the issue that much.
First of all, “mutilate”. I’m not sure you know what this word means.
Two is right out the window, as “serious damage” is basically impossible when you’re already dead. And the incisions required to remove a heart or kidney are by no means violent or disfiguring to a corpse.
Second of all, tough titties. What the hell do you care about your corpse when you’re dead? You don’t care about anything! You don’t get to care about anything, you’re dead. The wishes of the family are nice, but we’re talking about following an indemonstrable superstition vs. saving people’s lives. Yeah, excuse me for setting my priorities in that regard.
Here’s what you don’t seem to get. In either case, the people most likely affected are the lazy. That is, those who really don’t care enough one way or the other to deal with it - people like me. And I’m sorry, but making it so that lazy people do the harmful thing by default, rather than that lazy people do the beneficial thing by default, is just stupid. I really don’t even understand how this is a discussion. I just don’t. If you care enough about organ donorship that it would bother you, you should put in a little extra work to ensure that you don’t go on to save people’s lives. If you don’t care enough, you should be harvested by default, because obviously you don’t care.
I have opted in. I opted in many years ago. I am quite willing to put my money where my mouth is. No one has come to chop me up or mutiliate me. And I have no fear that they will. I am still using my body. When I’m done with it, the State can have it and maybe save someone else’s life, or eyesight, or some such.
I’m not sure why this is even a deal. When you go to apply for your license or State Id, the form will have a place:
CHECK THIS BOX IF YOU WISH TO OPT OUT FOR ORGAN DONATION
That’s it. That’s all it will take, and all of those people who don’t care but are too lazy to change it, or who don’t think about it, will be included. And we’ll have more organs for sick children and sick people.
Easy peasy.
Perhaps once you’ve already decided that there’s absolutely no good reason that any sane person would ever not want to be an organ donor, it becomes hard to imagine any reason for a shortage other than “people are too lazy to check a box”.
waits patiently for a reason that’s not “Cuz!”
In this country, around 90% of people believe organ donation is a good thing and would hope for one for themselves if they needed it. But nowhere near 90% are on the register.
Based on this, I would think it’s fair to say that most people would want their organs to be donated if required, and thus the default assumption can reasonably be that any person, unless they have stated otherwise, wishes for their organs to be donated. It makes sense to assume the most likely choice, especially when that choice removes real suffering on a scale that completely eclipses any suffering that it could potentially cause.
The only people who ought to get upset enough about the idea of an opt out system are those who would opt out anyway. You could just say “the only people who ought to get upset enough about opt in are those who would opt in anyway”, but those who prefer opt out generally do so out of concern for those who don’t receive organs because someone didn’t bother to opt in. It’s not so much about what they, individually, gain or lose from either system. What good reason does anyone have to get upset about the idea of someone donating their organs when it wasn’t important enough to them that they opted out?
There’s already advertising. Come on now: do you really think nobody had thought to try something that obvious?
Bonus points for a supremely goofy comparison of a game you get to have fun playing vs. something that happens after you die.
I haven’t said anything about anyone’s sanity, and I think I’ve already illustrated that there is a gap between supporting organ donation and signing up to be an organ donor. Here are two studies of these programs that point to an increase in organ donation just because opt-out is the default. Shouldn’t we have more intelligent public policy based on science and smart incentives?
I think it’s fair to say that most people would not want their organs donated, and that this is demonstrated by the fact that most people have not declared that they want their organs to be donated.
I choose not to be an organ donor because I am concerned that, in an emergency situation, medical officials might not prioritize saving my life if I had consented in advance to having my organs harvested. Call me paranoid if you like.
Polls say otherwise.
It kind of is.
Thank you for sharing. Now, a good reason for choosing not to be an organ donor is…?
Have you heard something, or can you cite something, that would cause you to think this a possibility?
By that reasoning, once we adopt an opt-out system, it will be equally fair to say that everyone who does not opt out must be okay with being a donor. Sounds like a winning proposition to me!
So you think your physicians would choose to act in the best interests of a hypothetical organ acceptor who they will never knowingly treat, meet or even learn the identity of over choosing to act in the best interests of a patient currently in their care whose welfare they are ethically and legally bound to protect?
Yes, you are right that voicing such suspicions makes it seem as if your stance is informed solely by counter-rational ideation.
Ah, so that’s the real crux. Figures. I’ve been an organ donor for years, in and out of the hospital for various things, and no one has killed me yet to take my perfectly good parts.
The hilarious thing about all this resistant nonsense, is that someday it won’t matter and everywhere will be opt-in, like wearing seatbelts. The only misfortunate part of it is that people will die because of others’ inanities, but I guess if you’re good with that, more power to you and the organs you’ll needlessly take with you.
I can envision a scenario in which a doctor might decide that he’s ethically obligated to save six lives by not saving my own.
“First do no harm.” I won’t say this has never happened because unfortunately people do behave unethically sometimes. And it seems to me that that kind of thing is less likely to happen if there are more organ donors.