You assert that good reasons exist to reject organ donorship but refuse to mention any
You neglect data that shows participation up in opt-out countries
You say that you’re afraid that being an organ donor makes you more susceptible to medical malpractice ()
You assert that rather than the obvious answer (people are lazy/stupid and can’t be arsed to do simple things to make life better for total strangers), that there is a 60% error on a major national poll because, for some reason, people find it “awkward” to tell a stranger that they don’t want to be organ donors.
We’re done here. You obviously have no intention of debating this honestly, your opinion on the subject is fueled more by your own paranoia than by facts, and when you hear the clopping of hooves you look for zebras. Dude, let us know if you have anything positive to contribute, because up to this point, you’re batting zero.
Would anyone else care to explain to the good gentlemen why his fear of medical malpractice due to being an organ donor is less in line with “fear of being a hit target for not paying protection money” and more in line with “fear of becoming sterile for having a macbook on your lap every once in a while”? :rolleyes: Dude, I’ve heard some weird-ass paranoias in my day, but this one is out there, even by those standards. My advice: counseling may be in order.
Doctor 1: “Man, we’ve got twenty patients waiting on kidney transplants and only three coming in today.”
Doctor 2: “I don’t get it. Opt-out was supposed to fix this, right?”
Doctor 1: “I know, I know. Why would anyone consciously choose not to donate their organs? It’s not like it matters to them what happens to their organs after they die.”
Doctor 2: “I swear, there’s got to be a way to…”
Enter the paramedics pushing a stretcher.
EMT: “This man’s left ventricle has been perforated! We need to get him in the OR right now!”
Fearing for your life is a good reason not to do something. Fearing for your life irrationally is not a good reason for doing something, and this is an irrational fear. Worse, it’s an irrational fear that is unlikely to protect your life and is likely to harm other people.
Doctor 1: “You getting sued by all three families, too?”
Doctor 2: “Yeah. You know, I don’t really know why we thought the kidneys from a random man off the street would be a match for any of the people on our transplant list.”
Doctor 1: “No kidding. The number of factors that must be accounted for in order to successfully perform a transplant are high enough, the odds were against it from the start. When the test results from the lab came back and said they weren’t a match, that should have been a sign.”
Doctor 2: “We’re pretty crap, aren’t we?”
Doctor 1: “Yeah, it’s almost as if we were created to be bumbling buffoons to score points in an internet debate without any reliance on, like, reality.”
Hospital Administrator 1: I thought my plan for a specialized team of doctors that peform emergency trauma care before noon and coordinate organ transplant surgeries after lunch was a great idea, but now I think I am starting to understand why that is not how hospitals are ever actually allowed to operate!
Hospital Administrator 2: I hear that! You know what always cheers me up when lawsuits get me down?
Hospital Administrator 1: Getting wasted and setting off firecrackers over the surgery amphitheatre intercom?
Hospital Administrator 2: Yes, while also masturbating!
Hospital Administrator 1: I knew I liked you! Let’s roll!
I think opt out is a good idea but not because it saves lazy people who would otherwise opt in the trouble of opting in.
I support it because I think a lot of people, deep down inside are squeemish, selfish or don’t want to contemplate their own mortality. Sure they like organ donations in theory and would like an organ transplant if they needed it but aren’t really so excited about their body being used for spare parts after they die. So, they don’t opt in and when you ask them why they aren’t organ donors, they say “oh I didn’t know how”
Thats frequently bullshit. They knew how, they just decided to ignore the box for because they are squeemish, selfish or don’t want to contemplate their mortality. But they realize that this is selfish and many people could not bring themselves to check a box to opt out even if they could do so anonymously on the internet. You’re really hoping people who would prefer not to donate their organ will be too lazy to opt out or that when confronted with their own selfishness, they will just go with the default and not opt out.
I think the best organ donor rate can be had by having the guy who processes your driver’s license ask you if you want to be an organ donor then you lose some of the anonymity of making the election online.
I can’t find statistics but i bet that the states that have online opt out programs have a much higher than 10% opt out rate, in fact I can’t find a state that has an organ donor rate of over 90%. But still have a higher donor rate than opt in states.
I bet you would get even higher donor participation rates if the guy that was processing your claim asked you if you wanted to be an organ donor. Sure its social pressure and offensive to some people but it is also driven by irrationality and squeemishness.
Your reading of the polls is probably incorrect. I think there is a disconnect between what people would tell a pollster they would do and what they would actually do.
America has an opt in system and a relatively high organ donor rate compared to countries with opt out systems.
And you can’t really say that its paranoia. There have been instances of doctors being pressured to declare patients brain dead so that the organ tranplant teams could harvest organs while they were still fresh. I think the answer to these pressures to harvest organs is to have a lot more organ donors, flood the market so to speak.
At the very least make people opt out if they don’t want to donate ONE kidney after death. Shit I know people that do this while they are still alive. If everyone consented to donate ONE kidney at death, we wouldn’t have an organ shortage in this country.
Or it indicates that people support organ transplants in theory but they don’t want to be used for spare parts.
How about donating ONE kidney when you die?
A very good donor might be harvested for everything but the real shortage is in kidneys. If we could just get everyone to consent to donating a kidney, it might make a real difference and there wouldn’t be very much pressure to prematurely harvesting your organs.
Shit people can live with one kidney, they can certainly be dead with one kidney.
Yes, we are still learning a lot about brain activity. For example it turns out that some patients who are believed to be in vegetative states could still be conscious. And yes, that applies to some types of possible brain death as well. There’s nothing for it except to keep doing the research. Saying you wouldn’t be an organ donor for that reason (which doesn’t apply in all cases) is short sighted.
Based on fundamental confusions about brain death, with very little actual facts supporting the idea.
LifeSiteNews belongs in a category with NaturalNews, WorldNetDaily, and
30BananasADay - completely worthless as independent citations. I mean, anyone, feel free to correct me, but I was under the impression that LifeSiteNews had about the reliability of the Daily Mail, if that.
Best of both worlds - a shitty newsrag known for lying that it making an issue of, once again, brain death.
Bit of a bad example - this is a person already in terminal condition from a debilitating genetic disorder who was going to die either way - this was never in question. The blog’s characterization as “grisly murder” would be hilarious if they weren’t serious - it’s completely off-base. Oh, and important to note: the doctors involved were sued. They won the court case, and that is essentially the only such case on record.
Smapti, lemme ask you something. What’s your medical background? Do you understand what brain death is, or how the body dies? Do you have any understanding of how we measure death, or how terminal illnesses like the one Navarro had affect the body? Somehow, given these articles you’ve cited… I don’t think you do.
Here is my reason for being in general against opt-out systems.
First, as background, I have opted in for organ donation in my state. Second, I am an atheist and I don’t believe in any soul-like thing that will remain in existence after my physical life-processes have stopped. Even if there were such a thing, by definition it would be divorced from my physical corpse. And I am not interested in how my surviving loved ones, if any, would feel about my decision.
However, my body does belong to me while I am alive, it is recognized in law that, assuming I am competent, I am the one who has final say as to what is done to it while I am alive. And like anything else that belongs to me and for which I am responsible in life, I should have first say in what is done to it when I am dead*.
The big argument in favor of opt-out schemes is that it will save the lives of more people who need organs than an opt-in system. There is no doubt about that. However, those people do not have a right to be saved.
Yes, you read correctly, those people do not have a right to be saved. They have the right to spend their money to get the best treatment they can afford (or their insurance is willing to pay for). They do not have the right to insist or expect for other people to donate organs to them, any more than they have the right to insist or expect that other people will contribute money to their care, because “they need it”. It should always be by the choice of the donors.
Note that I don’t think it would be the end of the world if opt-out systems are adopted. On the other hand, I don’t think it would be the end of the world if fewer people who need organs are saved if those systems weren’t adopted.
*Interesting legal parallel that perhaps argues against my own point. The estates of people who die without wills are disposed of by the government, based on laws. I suppose you could draw a parallel between dying without a will and dying without opting out of organ donation. Stubbornness and ignorance probably account for most of those who die without wills. Just a thought.
Any comment on the criticism that this is simply taking idealism to its ludicrous conclusion in which we support the rights of the dead at the expense of the living, whereas going the other direction would slightly infringe on the rights of the dead at a major benefit to the living, while the dead don’t really care about their rights either way? I feel like such idealism is out of place when its a matter of a tiny violation to save a whole lotta lives.
Please note the courtesy that I quoted you accurately and did not call your comments “stuff”.
Yes, I do have a comment. I think that your feeling (or way of thinking, if I am going to be generous) is misguided. What you have on one side is “I need someone’s organ in order to live.” What you have on the other side is me and my body and my decision as to what to do with it.
Your argument (being generous again) seems to be that, once I am dead, it is fair and right of the government to assume control of my remains unless I have expressly forbidden it. The rationale for this seems to be that there are a lot of people who need organs.
My position is two-fold: the need of those people for organs does not constitute a right to receive them, and that not granting that right is not at their “expense”; and I am talking about rights because we are talking about a government-run program for the harvesting of organs from dead people.
Absolutely incredible. I wonder if the need for this to become a reality someday, will make lawmakers include a caveat that the only people who may receive a transplant are those who opt-in. I bet then that those that are so concerned about their bodies will have a completely different take on things.
)