Why is that a bad thing?
Someone might get haunted?
I say switch to opt out. Sacks of meat should have voiced their opinion when they were still people if they cared that much.
Quite a few I understand; supposedly a major reason to support opt-in is because the usual reason for someone not donating organs isn’t that they oppose it, but because they never cared enough to state their position. The person making the decision usually isn’t them, it’s some traumatized next of kin who has the question come at them out of the blue and who isn’t thinking clearly.
Changing the rules because you’re not winning one way IS wrong.
Having to do ANYTHING is completely unacceptable. Why should I have to go out of my way to not be robbed on death? It should come as standard.
So you have no right to demand that people make some special effort to not be robbed!
That is completely, absolutely irrelevant. If you can’t get enough people to opt in, that doesn’t mean the opt-in system isn’t working. Everyone who wants to opt in can do so extremely easily. Working as intended. The fact that not enough organs are being harvested that way is completely beside the point.
…Except the people you’ve now changed the rules on. Changing the rules in the middle of a game is trickery - and the extortion/blackmail remark was WRT to allowing only organ donors to receive organs.
Being against donating your organs isn’t the same thing as being against receiving them at all.
Because some people are against organ donation. I realise that’s not what you were getting at, but it really is that simple. People don’t need to justify being against it, it’s their right, and using someone’s organs to do something they morally oppose just because of a mistake of bureaucracy would be completely unacceptable.
You want more organs? Get rid of laws that prevent people receiving money for them. Don’t change the rules in the hopes of catching people out.
This isn’t about “winning”.
“Robbed”? You’re dead; there’s no “you” anymore to be robbed.
Yes, it does.
It isn’t.
Of course not. It is however amoral and selfish; parasitic.
In other words, exploit the poor for the benefit of the rich. It’s not at all surprising to see this idea paired with the claim that it’s OK to take organs without being willing to donate your own. It’s all about parasitism.
And this is a large part of why I choose not to be an organ donor - I prefer that any medical personnel tending to me in the event of a life threatening emergency view me as a person rather than as a “sack of meat”.
Call me paranoid.
The word “winning” was chosen because it fit the “changing the rules” part. You got what I meant, so why complain about that?
[/QUOTE]
There’s “no me” to be robbed of the possessions I’ve willed to my friends either, but we acknowledge a person’s right to dispense of those according to their will in life. Organs are no different - hell, yes they are, organs are part of you, not just property.
No, it really doesn’t. Under an opt-in system, anyone who cares enough to opt in can do so - rather easily, too. That’s the system working perfectly. The system isn’t broken just because supply isn’t meeting demand. The ideal system is one that allows people to donate if they choose, and not if they don’t. That’s what we have. Again, the only way to improve on it without getting horribly immoral is to allow people to sell organs.
See above.
Taking these two together: so what if it is selfish? It’s not “amoral” though - you think people aren’t donors out of spite or something? People generally have reasons they feel are moral.
How is allowing the sale of organs “exploiting the poor”? Allowing them to sell a kidney is not the same thing as forcing them, if that’s what you meant.
You’re right. No gay marriage, then. No gender reassignment surgery. No women’s rights. No freedom for descendents of slaves. The rules are the rules, no changing them because we don’t like the effects.
You can’t be robbed when you’re dead. I’m not trying to be clever here, just logical. And legal, in fact. If you die and I come into your home and take your stereo, I still haven’t robbed you. Your heir, perhaps. But not you.
That’s exactly what it means.
Not really, not everywhere. In my state, you at the very least need a state ID or drivers license to opt in*, and computer access and the time and memory to fill out the online form. It’s that last one that delayed me. I’d literally forget to do it, and the when finally I remembered, I wouldn’t have my ID on me, and I’d get distracted by a squirrel or a post on Facebook, and then I’d close the tab and go cook dinner. Why the fuck should someone die because I have the attention span of a jerboa on methamphetamines?
*I know you don’t live in the US, but perhaps you heard a little bit about our recent skerfuffle on states requiring photo ID to vote and how onerous a burden that was considered for some people? Same photo IDs are required for organ donation.
It’s not beside the point, it is the point. We tried this system, and it didn’t work. When rational adults try something and it doesn’t work, they try something else.
Ok. So I’m morally opposed to someone letting my organs rot in the ground because I found a really neat looking recipe for chicken cacciatore. I find rotting organs because I made a mistake of bureaucracy completely unacceptable. So now what?
Bottom line, there’s absolutely no argument against opt-out that doesn’t apply to opt-in. There is only one argument against opt-in that doesn’t apply to opt-out: fewer people die for want of organs. That’s a pretty big argument.
If you’re going to be wilfully stupid, I’m not even going to bother.
But that’s why the will analogy falls apart. Bodies aren’t property to give away. That’s why heirs aren’t required to follow funeral requests in wills. Why should you be able to have what amounts to a will stating that your organs be wantonly destroyed but not one that says you must be cremated?
Perhaps not at others’ expense, but you can state that part of your estate is to be used to provide for a funeral, and that your heir has to arrange it if they want their share - otherwise it defaults to the local cat shelter.
Not having a thing done to your body is an extremely easy, and free request. It’s easier to just burn it or throw it in a ditch than arrange for it to be sped to a hospital, mutilated and desecrated, then returned for the funeral.
Speaking of which, what if I just want to leave a beautiful corpse (hah!) at my open casket? Harvesting my skin and eyes and maybe even appendages if by the time I die limb transplants are a thing, will make that rather difficult. And maybe I’d rather my great-great-great (because we’ll be living centuries by then! we will!) grandkids get to say goodbye to my body in a relatively sleep-like state than a mutilated corpse?
Not a proper analogy, since in this case they haven’t been willed to anyone. They’re just abandoned.
Except for the part where other people die because people don’t think of doing so. Not because of some objection to organ donation, but simply because it doesn’t occur to them.
That’'s not an improvement, that’s the nightmare scenario. That’s when people are reduced to something that can be ripped apart for a profit, that’s when the poor are dismantled for the rich.
No; usually, they don’t have any reasons at all. They just never get around to it.
Forcing someone to harm and possibly kill themselves by economic coercion is just as much coercion as pointing a gun at them is.
Your entire position in this is one of selfishness, cruelty, and privilege. Squeeze the poor for organs, make sure that the default position is that organs are left to rot unless someone goes out of their way to stop it, take organs for yourself but feel no obligation to give in return.
I’m glad you recognize that your logic applied to other areas of human life is stupid. It’s a step.
How about instead of “opt-in” or “opt-out”, you have “must-opt”.
Put it on the driver’s license application or something. You can choose either but if you don’t tick one of the boxes your application is incomplete and you don’t get a license.
Or on the tax return. Yes or no, but if you don’t choose one; no tax refund. That way you’re able to reconsider every year.
It would only work for adult organs, but that would be the bulk of organ needs anyway.
I’m sure I’m not the first to think of this, so there’s probably some obvious reason it wouldn’t work or it would be mentioned alongside the in/out options. Otherwise I claim ownership and naming-rights of this third option.
I can think of literally no document/thing/time/place that every person has/is where we could, logistically, make this work. Not everyone has a drivers license, and many don’t have an ID. Not every adult files a tax return.
So you’re still stuck with needing a practical default assumed option. A body comes into the morgue that used to belong to the town eccentric (or homeless person or housewife or kid who just turned 18 or immigrant here illegally or…) who never drove and never filed taxes. Now what?
I’m thinking an opt- out driver’s license system, but absent proof, the assumption is negative. Meaning when you get or renew your DL you are asked if you wish to opt out. If you opt out, you are not a donor. If you dont answer or answer no, you are. At time of death, if your dl calls you a donor you’re a donor, if it doesn’t you aren’t, if you aren’t carrying your DL at time of death you are assumed to not be a donor.
Positives would be a boatload more available organs (as evidenced by opt-out jurisdictions like Austria), with the assumption that that saves a significant number of lives.
No likelihood of Sevencl’s accidental butchering for reason of not knowing of your objection to donation
No need for family members having to decide wther to donate in cases where decedent was carrying their DL
Clearly the government doesn’t own your body after death, as you can answer 'no" at time of DL renewal
Drawbacks are that people without dl’s are not part of the potential donating pool.
Sevencl’s accidental butchering due to mistaken omission of opting out.
The notion that you have an inherent right not to have to go through the effort of opting out, however minimal.
When comparing this to the current gun discussion, I believe the above scheme to be a measure that has a lives saved /belief of rights violated ratio that is many times higher than gun proposals being discussed, or a ratio that is at least in the same ballpark, and so deserving of at least as much attention. Implementation should also be significantly easier, and could be done much quicker - meaning it can save lives this year.
Which is what my state had until 2006 (I think?), with the exception that if your family member didn’t want you to donate your organs, they could override your indicated option on your license and what your doctor said. Weren’t enough organs being donated, which is why other forms of registry have been explored.
(I don’t know why it was changed to make it *harder *with the introduction of the online registry. You can still indicate on your license that you want to donate, but it doesn’t “count” unless you’re also in the online registry…which many people don’t understand. There are thousands who *think *they’re organ donors because they check the box on their license, but they’re not, because they haven’t registered online. Stupid, stupid system, almost as if it’s designed to *reduce *donations.)
Apparently not.
Allow me to respond in equally logical and well supported terms: “No, it isn’t.” There is no winning and losing here, and there is no moral problem with replacing one policy with another because the new policy will be more effective.
Because…
You’re not being robbed.
Nobody is being robbed. Your family and friends can’t inherit your organs; they’re not like your house or your money. After you die, they can either be donated to someone else, or rot/be cremated/otherwise disposed of with your corpse. They have no value to anyone after you die.
It does if people are dying because of a shortage of organ donors.
That’s the entire point of the system.
It’s not a game, and nobody is being tricked since the system will be entirely transparent and people will always have the choice to opt out. This is all bluster.
Yes, a very small number of people are opposed to it for religious reasons. They can check a box and opt out. Most people, though, are just being lazy or refusing to contemplate their own deaths. That’s understandable, but people shouldn’t die because of it. It’s stupid.
So making people check a box is immoral, but having people buy organs off the financially desperate is OK? Please.