Okay, give me a good reason. Should be no problem. Haven’t heard a good one yet. Either way though, as pointed out, massive portions of the population support organ donorship for themselves and others - far more than are actually on the list. This indicates that laziness is, in fact, a major factor. And you still haven’t pointed out why the onus to not be lazy should be on those who would be a detriment to society for their own personal beliefs, rather than those who would be a benefit to society.
As http://donatelife.net/understanding-donation/statistics/ points out, citing the report by the UNOS:
…So much for that bright idea. As we’ve said, it’s about laziness.
Okay, you’re paranoid. What’s more, your paranoia is hurting other people. This is not only insane and something more out of Monty Python than anything else (and, it should go without saying, not a good reason), but goes against everything medicine in the modern world stands for. Ever heard of the Hippocratic Oath?
Them’s gonna have to be some pretty fucking strong feelings of ethical obligation in order for them to be able to overcome the physician’s feelings of not wanting to be sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars, to lose their license to practice medicine forever, and to quite possibly be imprisoned for decades.
Cite for people stating that they’re too lazy to check a box?
By this logic, why ought I care about what happens to anyone else’s body after I die?
I don’t recall seeing any, so it’s probably not very good advertising.
My car insurance is with State Farm, but Flo and that gecko make their voices heard.
Hey, what about some sort of cash incentive?
Pay people $100 up front to consent to donation irrevocably?
It could be a checkbox on tax forms, all handled automagically.
(Thanks for the bonus points- I almost went with New Coke. 
)
Persuading you to give weight to moral concerns benefiting the larger society certainly does seem like a losing battle.
:rolleyes:
Look, the fact of the matter is that while 90% state that they want to donate their organs, only 30% know how, and even less proceed to do so. So I guess it’s not just laziness, it’s also stupidity. For which the same argument applies.
Once again, I challenge you to give me a reason why we should place the onus of figuring out the options and making a statement on the issue to those who would save lives rather than those who wouldn’t. And to give me one good reason why anyone would not donate their organs.
Well, you care now. After you die, you won’t care, because…
…
…you’ll be dead.
This is getting stupid. I’ve already posted one cite that showed the rate of support for organ donation is higher than the rate of people signing up, and Budget Player Cadet posted another. And I posted two cites that show opt-out can increase donation rates.
Would you accept the argument “I have seen the ads, therefore they’re great?”
From which it does not follow that the reason for failing to opt in is laziness.
If that is your argument, would you concede then that opt-out is basically an attempt to take advantage of and exploit people who are too lazy to do so?
Well, gee, why would anyone care about the living? I only have my best interests at heart, even after I’m dead!
As has been stated above, I shouldn’t care about what happens to my body after I die, because I’ll be dead and it won’t affect me.
Therefore, one can only conclude that I shouldn’t care about what happens to anyone else after I die either, because I’ll be dead and it won’t affect me.
It pretty much does, yes. I guess the only evidence you will accept is people stating outright that they’re lazy, in which case you’re deliberately setting an unreasonable threshold for evidence.
It takes advantage of apathy, not people. But I made this general point long before you asked me to concede it.
Heh, I just checked the back of my medicare card and I see I forgot to put the “I’m an organ donor” sticker on.
Make it opt-out.
It follows directly from the fact that 90% want to but only 30% know how that 60% are either lazy or stupid or both. Or is there something we’re leaving out here? Maybe some secret reason you haven’t yet told us? (Still waiting, by the way - you seemed to offer a reason and have yet to provide one.)
“Exploit”? How is it exploitation if the first time it has any effect on them is when they are already dead?
Or 60% feel awkward telling a total stranger they don’t want to be organ donors.
You won’t care about your corpse when you’re dead, not just because you’ll probably be unable to do so, but because even if there were an afterlife (assuming it’s doesn’t involve Anubis or anything) you won’t actually be using your body anyway. The person for whom your body was of most use no longer needs it.
Other people will be using their bodies after you’re dead.
And I, conversely, no longer need anyone else after I die, so why is what happens to them from that point any concern of mine?
If you can’t see a good reason to care more for a living person you’ll get nothing from than a dead chunk of meat, I can’t explain it to you. What I suspect is more likely is that you already see a good reason, but are wilfully acting ignorant.
And the curtain goes up on the naked speculation portion of our thread. There’s a saying that statements without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, and that applies here. Meanwhile the opt out side can offer a couple of significant (supported) facts: most people say they support organ donation, but fewer are registered as organ donors; and opt-out programs increase donations. The bottom line here is that people tend to go with whatever the default is. If the default is that your organs go with you when you die, people will do that. If the default is that they’re donated, they’ll do that.