Oh, that Tapping American Organ Reserves Act. I think I heard we were going to thoroughly mine our own coasts and beaches to deal with that, so I needn’t worry.
Assuming that everyone in the country is in reasonably close contact with their next of kin, of course. And talks about death when they do meet.
Look, this conversation is clearly about, and only about, people who don’t go around appraising their family of their beliefs, and/or people who don’t have known family to appraise. Heck, if there’s family nearby, they’re going to get their say, regardless of which way the program opts. So we’re only talking about people who don’t have family in spitting distance. A minority that you seem to be trying to minimize out of existence, which I suppose is one way of resolving the discussion.
The difference, of course, being the difference between “You should want to help these poor people”, and “You should want to help these poor people, so we’ll take your stuff and do it for you if you don’t stop us.” The militant salvation army, again.
As noted, we’re talking about what should happen in cases where this just hasn’t happened, either voting to prevent or support the idea of being harvested. In such cases, what should be the default: risk missing a donation, or plunder with reckless abandon. That’s the question.
Ah yes, a drain on the famous system. Should people who have hepatitis C or AIDS or other conditions that prevent them from being organ donors be pushed to the back of the line? It seems to me that they’d be a drain on the system, can’t put anything into it, and they’re some of the most likely to need the donations.
I just happen to believe that it is likely that some people may find it convenient to be “unable” to contact the family before they harvest the organs. Again, in the situation I posited with Chowder, he’s shown up at the ER as a John Doe, an unidentified person. It is my understanding that identification of such persons can be very time consuming and labor intensive. And the Terry Schiavo case to the contrary, there is usually only a short window of 24-36 hours when organ harvesting is a viable proposition for the brain dead. Why go through all that effort to find someone who might tell them that they can’t have the organs? Let it slide til he’s a corpse, and they’ll have all the time in the world to find the family, then.
And the NHS will have the organs it needs to save other lives.
Lemur866, there are people who believe that many state’s probate laws are immoral when we’re talking about intestate estates. IIRC Massachusetts in the 70s and 80s would take a large (ISTR 50%) hit off the estate before distributing the remainder to any heirs. It happened to a classmate of mine when his parents were killed in an airliner crash. I don’t object to your proposed probate scenario: absent a will specifying otherwise, you’ve hit on a reasonable ‘default’ distribution. I simply mean to point out that it is possible for the sort of opt-out system you’re holding up as an example to be abused.
I suggest forming a queue on your beaches; we Brits will have no other option but to join them, thwarting our plans.
That’s a good point, and you’re right, I haven’t addressed that (although with “in spitting distance” you seem to have missed our on that wonderful invention, the phone). I would say that a person who feels strongly about something that their family will have a say in who have the chance but do not talk to their family about has themselves to blame, but that certainly does depend on them actually having family to talk to or a means of talking to them. I suppose it depends on a couple of things; what is the default assumption if there are no family/the family doesn’t know the wishes of the deceased? I’d be happy to make an exemption in that case, so if the family can’t be contacted or don’t know the organs aren’t harvested.
The difference, of course, between “You should give up something that has no value to you or anyone else” and “You must give up something of no value - as long as you haven’t said no. Or told your family to say no”. See, I can condense an argument into soundbites too!
Like i’ve said, I do think it’s a bad thing to do. I do not deny the militant aspects of it. I do not deny that there is a principle being broken. I’m just saying that I believe the good resulting from it is worth that evil. And that is an opinion you can rightly not care about.
Yes, having to ask the family and check if there’s an opt-out on your record *is * just reckless, isn’t it?
I appreciate you disagree and I understand your problems with this. I can understand you feeling annoyed by this. But come on, “plunder with reckless abandon”? Will the doctors be wearing tricorn hats and parrots on their shoulders?
I may be mad, but even I know not to take the word of a madman.
Yes, “a drain on the famous system”. If everyone thought as you (apparently) do, that they’ll need their organs after they die, where the heck would transplants come from?
Nobody’s expecting hepC or AIDS sufferers to donate, blood or organs or anything. Yes, they need them more than others- however, to use their organs for transplants is dangerous. I guarantee you- if there was some way to “clean” those organs and use them if they were made available, we’d use 'em.
My earlier post answering this post got et. So I’ll be succinct: Oh, so you are in favor of the “only doctors can use doctors, only firefighters can call on firefighters, only painters can buy paintings, only farmers can buy crops, only food producers can buy food” model!
I’ll stick with the “system” called “society”, thanks. People put things into the system, and people take things out of the system, and not necessarily in equal type or proportion. Fortunately for everyone, the doctors administering the organ donation scheme currently seem in favor of the society model as well, so arguments to the contrary of its function can be safely scorned as the punitive scare tactics they are.
Sorry, we don’t have “queues” here in the states; we only have “lines”; and we can’t be drawing lines in the sand (beach sand, that is), so I guess some proper subset of you and us are simply going to be screwed.
Wait a minute, hold on a second. I thought that if the family could be contacted, they’d just get whatever they want, certainly if there is no indication of the deceased’s wishes, and maybe even (under the current system) overriding any such wishes if they didn’t like the stiff’s vote. Isn’t that the case?
If it is the case, then the only case where this opt-in/out stuff will make a difference is in case where family can’t be contacted (or isn’t contacted, as one poster has suggested the case for.) That’s what I thought what we were talking about here. Not a huge subset of people, perhaps, but there have to be some people out there who have no family left and don’t want to be sliced-and-diced after the fact.
Of course, you had to assume your own conclusion to do it -that the “something” (the intact body, right) has no value to “you or anyone else”. If this assumption was actually valid across the board, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
And I don’t think that the good is worth the evil, since the principle being broken is one that we can scarce afford to cede ground on. However, I do respect your right to have your opinions, misguided though they may be :D.
Again: family? What family? Doesn’t family there make moot the discussion of opting anything at all?
That would be awesome (though probably not emergency-room sterile, especially the parrot).
But you’re right, I did get a little hyperbolic; I’ll go as low as “plunder with reckfull abandon”. (Hey, it’s only fair, since “harvesting” is pretty hyperbolic in its own right.)
But the truly mad are too mad to correctly state that they’re mad so when they say they’re mad that means that they’re not mad, except that then nobody mad could say they were mad so saying you were mad would mean you weren’t mad unless, wait,
See, this is why the French have nothing to fear from us. People assume the fewer working hours mean they’re not doing anything - in reality, they’re conscripted into a cunning queue-based coastal defence system.
Actually, the people I was thinking this would make a difference to are those who either want to or have no objections to having their organs taken (and their family know) but either don’t have the time, the inclination or the opportunity to go and actually sign up. I think this is possibly quite a large group, but I have no stats.
It has no value to you, because you’re dead. It may have had value to you, in which case you can opt out or inform your family, as you would with a will and your various other assets. Or it may continue to have value to your family, in whatever terms. These are taken into account.
When the Organ Police break down my door and taser me, I shall at the least be happy in the knowledge that you got the last laugh.
Apathy, inclination, opportunity. I sound like i’m in an Agatha Christie book.
True, but it’s hyperbolic against my side.
If I am mad, then my ability to recognise my condition is actually random, and so you would be unwise to take my word. If i’m not mad, then either i’m mistaken or i’m lying; again, you’d be unwise to take my word.
Look on the bright side; I could’ve claimed I was sane.
True, but don’t they automatically lose every other war or something? So it’s all a matter of timing…
I think the people who don’t care will be satisfied with either outcome (even putting aside the fact that they’re dead). Of the remaining people, and omitting those who know and care enough to get a donor/antidonor card, we’re just left with the people in either camp who would have opted the other way if they had the knowledge, opportunity and laziness deficiency. One or the other of these groups are going to get screwed over, however this turns out. (Of course, one group would merely be screwed out of an opportunity to charitably donate, which doesn’t seem like that big an imposition to me at least; certainly not as much an imposition as the undesired taking of their property.)
Assuming you can get in touch with the family…and I do so think that I have the right to determine the disposition of my corpse!
Wait, are we having one of those socialist/libertarian conflicts? ‘Good of the many vs. the rights of the individual’? I think you’re supposed to conclude those sorts of arguments by just agreeing to disagree, violently, with weapons, at the first convenient opportunity.
(…and unless you can prove the absence of an afterlife, you haven’t the right to assume that my prefereces become moot after my death, either. So there. )
Hey, I live in America; we occasionally have administrations that see a slippery slope and think “waterslide!”. One has to be cautious about these things.
Yeah, those always were somewhat incomprehensible. What again?
(Omitting humorous responses to humorous responses to keep post from exceeding the humor/content tolerance limits.)
Well, taking the first group, if they don’t care either way then it seems reasonable to me to get their organs rather than not, which won’t happen in the opt-in system.
Of the knowledge, opportunity etc people, you’re right, one group is going to get screwed. But those who wouldn’t want their organs taken are able to inform their family of this wish, while (as I understand it) those who would aren’t able to rely on their family in this way. So one group does become bigger than the other. As well as that, IMHO the amount of people who would want to donate organs but don’t get a chance is greater than the amount who wouldn’t but don’t get a chance, but I have no stats.
I think you do too; like I said, just as you do your property and other assets. If you can distribute your posessions as you like when you’re dead and no longer have any value to them, then certainly your would be included in that, all things being equal. I just don’t think they’re equal.
As to conflict… possibly. When confronted with the “Do you take healthy organs from the guy in the waiting room to save five near-death people?” question, which side i’m on practically varies by day. So yes, I pretty much am a “Many outweigh the few” monster, and that probably has a hand in this. I’m starting to be glad I can’t go to any U.S. Dopefests.
We have those here, too. I just don’t think this is a particularly risky one, given that the next step would be forcible organ harvest no matter the deceased or family’s wishes, and I sure as hell can’t see that passing.
Just referring to the apathetic, without inclination, or without opportunity folks, who I think make the discussion unmoot.
Well, perhaps, but my interpretation of the article was that if the family can’t be contacted, then no donations will proceed. This is pretty much the de facto case in the US at the moment. The Perfect Master even wrote an article in which he says as much:
For the record I’m against it - ethically I think the system should be opt-in not opt-out. I could not accept an organ donation if there was any chance it was causing more grief to the donor’s family rather than less. As far as I can see medical criteria alone is the only way to be fair, and whether or not someone is an organ donor is not part of that.
Lightnin’, as people do contribute in ways other than donating organs (e.g. at the extreme should a doctor who is working on curing cancer but for religious reasons cannot donate organs be allowed to die?) I think you are getting on the slippery slope of trying to judge people’s right to live by their moral worth.
You are also suggesting a policy that would be (if only unintenionally), massively discriminatory in my area, where a lot of a certain ethnic group are traditionally forbidden from donating organs, but tend to suffer from a condition that requires transplants.
And my paranoid side says I don’t think I’d be happy with people with the known moral and ethical qualities of our government having access to a DNA database and then putting everyone on an organ donation database by default.
Well, that’s an interesting question. I think we are having one of those - the notion that the state should by default appropriate something and share it out to many people, really is a bit socialist, and the notion that the individual should, unmolested by excessive state interference or control, choose what he or she wants, really is quite a libertarian one.
What’s odd is where people seem to stand on the issues. I’d normally expect this board to be quite weighted against the socialist side of the argument, and myself to be one of the few to be a bit sympathetic to it, but I find the opposite to be the case. Weird.
… Didn’t I just say we were having one of those conflicts earlier? Yes, we are. And the thing is, the socialist way can lead to the Pournelle Organlegging scenario, where wishes of the family are, ah, brushed over. And then it gets interesting.
For example, let’s say I have a motorcycle accident, become an organ donor. My medical records say nothing about the fact that I worked in an a network of AIDS treatment facilities for five years.
My parents, bless their hearts, don’t actually know that, nor some of the risks I took.
You did - in fact several of us have been talking around the same general point - but without (as far as I can tell) explicitly using the term socialist.
Now, as far as this board is concerned, I’ve often seemed to find myself on the leftmost fringe - which is what keeps surprising me about this thread.
An article in the Guardian (which I can’t access right now) quotes some useful numbers: in the UK, compulsory organ donation is predicted to save around 1000 lives. From the libertarian viewpoint this means that:
Doing the **wrong ** thing will save 1000 lives
Doing the **right ** thing has a cost of 1000 preventable deaths
This is not, in fact, a knock-down argument for opt-out - there are times when we accept a cost in lives as the price of freedom (trivially, we don’t outlaw extreme sports) - but it should give pause because it’s quite a lot of lives, and it’s generally held that saving lives is a moral good.
I think the question is: where does the principle of minimal state control come from? If it’s some sort of Fundamental Axiom, then there’s nothing more to say. But if it’s an empirically derived principle - that is, if we’ve observed that in the generality of cases state control leads to bad outcomes, and derived a political philosophy as a result - then it’s only fair to question whether *in this instance * our principle holds good. It could well be that excess state control is *generally * a bad thing but occasionally, and in this instance, a good thing.
Fundamentally, I don’t think this is any different from believing in free speech but banning the usual chestnuts: fire in a crowded theatre, incitment to violence etc. That is to say, supporting a principle until such point as it clearly leads to harm - and then setting it temporarily aside.
Organ donations will come from willing organ donors, as they should.
So why should they be allowed to receive transplants? With people who are unwilling to donate, you can at least attempt to change their minds. Somebody with hepatitis or other diseases is never going to be able to donate until “cleaning” technology is developed, if that ever happens.
Do you think that people who don’t buy lottery tickets should still be able to win it?
How about this: allow registered donors to have their transplants done for cheaper than non-donors. Or how about giving registered donors a tax break?
The point is, we don’t have enough transplantable organs as it is. We need to encourage people to register as donors- but most people don’t know, or don’t care, enough to register.
You’ve yet to list a valid reason (other than, say, disease), in my eyes, for why anyone would refuse to donate.
Religious reasons? No, that’s just stupid. If your religion says that your shuffled-off mortal coil is more important than potentially saving someone else’s life, you’re in the wrong god-bothering club.
Vague “property rights” issues? Again, stupid- your body has no value to you or your family after you’re dead. If you absolutely have to have some ashes to put up on the mantle, you won’t care or notice that dead Uncle George is missing a kidney.
So I’ll be succinct: Oh, so you are in favor of the “only doctors can use doctors, only firefighters can call on firefighters, only painters can buy paintings, only farmers can buy crops, only food producers can buy food” model!
