There are several countries in Europe with opt-out donation, and several with opt-in. If you look at donation signup rates across these, you can see a massive difference. When my daughter teaches defaults in behavioral economics, she shows the chart without an explanation, and asks the class to explain it. They come up with all sorts of weird cultural things.
I can show some numbers, but the data is a bit out of date and you could probably find more. That won’t answer the question directly, of course, but it might at least lead to an answer.
My understanding is that CO status is not given automatically. But there is no reason at all not to accept someone’s request to opt out of organ donation at face value. So it is an even better case.
That line of reasoning would seem to prevent any organ donation at all. Even if I opted in, and there was no doubt of this, my relatives might practice a different religion. If freedom of religion means protecting my relatives’ “right to bury my corpse whole” then my opting in or out doesn’t matter.
Again, all these influences are given some say in the decision, but that say doesn’t extend to the point of being a moral or legal right.
I opted in as part pf the California driver’s license process. However, it would be easy enough to set up a database of everyone. I’m also fine with not harvesting organs for someone not in the database - that is just noise.
The data on Europe I mentioned shows that the vast majority of people don’t really care. They will go with the default. Most in the countries who did not opt in probably would be fine with their organs being used - I would have been before I opted in. So, why not make the default the thing that saves the most lives?
You just can’t assume that “going with the default” means people don’t care. It means a lot of things: some won’t care, some won’t know they need to opt out, some just haven’t gotten around to opting out, etc.
In a sense it does by definition, since actually caring implies that they care enough to act to carry out their wishes. There are other factors in play. Many people who have not thought much about an issue take a default as a cue that those who do (government, their company in the case of 401Ks) thinks that the default is best.
Clearly you don’t want to set the default to something harmful, but that isn’t the case here.
I’m all for lots of publicity making the opt-out option known, I’m all for making it easy to opt-out, and I’m all religious and other groups who feel donation is wrong to publicize their views inside and outside.
Except not really, because they may not KNOW they have to “care”, as in, do something in order to not have their corpses violated on death. No amount of publicity can guarantee people will find out the system has changed such that they now need to do something instead of not do something. And even if you could guarantee everyone finds out about it, that still screws over people who don’t get around to it, forget that they need to, etc.
And really, the bottom line is that you SHOULD NOT HAVE TO! It doesn’t get any simpler, all other arguments are irrelevant: forcing people to opt out is wrong. I don’t want to have to go to any special effort to not be violated on death. It should be assumed that I don’t want that unless I say otherwise.
If people want to donate, let THEM have to seek it out, and go on a list, don’t force that inconvenience on everyone else!
Why should it be assumed? Because it happens to be your personal belief? It happens to be my personal belief that organ donation is a moral good, therefore it should be assumed that everyone would want that unless they say otherwise. I would assume (based on my beliefs) that anyone who has empathy for other human beings would want to give them the best possible chance of overcoming horrific accident or disease, right?
Avoiding that accidental harvesting comes at a real cost of organs from people who, unlike you, don’t care, not going to people who need them. The reason I ask this is because I recall at one point being part of an opt out system. At the time, i didn’t opt out. My most recent dl renewal was opt in. I didn’t opt in. This is inconsistent, and since I don’t have religious objections, my not opting in now feels morally suspect. In a system where donation only happens when your dl lists you as a donor, i thought opt out should sufficiently guard against rights violation, but clearly you feel different - making this less open-and-shut than I thought, and so the thread did what I needed it to.
That’s a valid point of view, but in the same way that there are people who do not want to donate but who don’t get around to opting out, there are people who do want to donate but never get around to opting in. In the first case their bodies are violated, in the second case some people who might live with a donated organ die.
Balancing these is more of a GD discussion than a GQ discussion.
Isosleepy. I apologize to you( as the OP) for having to move the thread to Great Debates from General Questions. It’s not your fault, but the thread quickly degenerated into personal opinions about the questions, unfortunately before the moderators could react.
It may be, but it puts you in the majority, since I believe the number of people who go against the default is < 20% either way you cut it. (Pun not intended.) Let’s face it, we are all busy and if you put off doing it what we want to do.
I’ve argued against an opt-out system in the past because (and I say this as an organ donor) I am uncomfortable with the presumption that society is entitled to your organs. But I’ve had a change of heart lately because I’ve come to understand that inertia plays such a large role in this system. Most people unfortunately can’t be bothered to take a minute to think about their wishes in this area. If that’s going to be the case, use it for a good purpose insteadof no purpose.
There is nothing wrong or immoral about that.
What? If you’re against donation, opt out. It’s not like it will be hard. You check a box or tell the DMV or something. You won’t have to jump through hoops of fire or wear a scarlet letter or something.
When people are dying because of a lack of donations because people can’t be bothered to check a box or figure out their wishes, the system is not working.
Nobody is being tricked.
Nobody is being extorted or blackmailed either. Since we’re going down a list of crimes that do not in any way apply here, I will add that no one is being murdered, assaulted, raped, kidnapped, or mail tamper-ed…
I’m not entirely comfortable with the idea that the state owns your corpse once you die. Just because the state can regulate the manner in which we inter bodies does not mean it’s acceptable for them to automatically assume my organs are fair game when I die. I say this as someone who has opted in to the organ donation system and who has made the decision to have my father’s organs donated when he died (all they could use was skin and corneas so far as I know).
Which brings me to a question. How many more organs would be harvested if we implemented an opt in system? How many more livers, hearts, or lungs would be circulating out there?
Ah, that’s what the ‘extorted’ thing meant. Strike that part of my post. I agree that’s a bad idea and I think it contravenes basic medical ethics. But it’s not a trick or a deception. The problem with organ donation appears to be laziness, not principled opposition to donating - people who are opposed to donation for personal or religious reasons (dumb as the reasons may) will always be able to opt out easily. Using things like laziness and human nature to good ends is just good public policy.
