Why do people assume compulsory “donation”* will actually alleviate the organ shortages?
We won’t be able to use even half the organs of people that die because you have
That’s only a small sub-set of the people who die every day.
Lol
It doesn’t really address my mother’s concern about being prematurely declared dead, but it’s a funny thought.
Calling it an “assumption” is hardly representing the position accurately or fairly in any sense or fashion. There is compelling evidence as to presumed consent increasing the rate of organ donation…
(Cite: http://web.stanford.edu/group/journal/cgi-bin/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Gundle_SocSci_2004.pdf - note particularly the case of the Antwerp transplant center vs the Leuven one, subject of a study originally published in The Lancet.)
… and while it must be acknowledged that the effect of presumed consent on the number of strictly living donors is debatable, presumed consent effecting a higher total number of organs donated on the whole is not an “assumption” so much as it is well-established and well-corroborated fact. The morality of opt-out systems is certainly debatable, as evidenced by this thread, but their effect relative to opt-in systems really is not particularly so.
I’m certain there would be more donors with opt-out. I’m not certain that would completely alleviate the shortage of organs, as damuri ajashi suggested.
I don’t think anyone in their right mind ever made such a claim. The contention is that opt-out systems mean fewer people die needlessly whilst waiting for an organ, certainly not that opt-out systems result in nobody dying whilst waiting for one.
Evidently I should have read the thread more diligently before posting this. Damuri Ajashi, as best I can interpret it, does indeed seem to have made a such claim.
It goes without saying that this is not a notion I endorse in the slightest. Akin to claiming that opt-out systems do not measurably increase the number of donated organs, claiming that opt-out systems entirely solve the issue of organ shortage is nonsense that strictly contradicts all available data.
OK, let’s review what I said:
I asked why do people assume opt-out will SOLVE the organ shortage?
I never denied it will increase the available organs, what I dispute is the notion that this will end shortages. There is a huge demand for new organs relative to supply. If you double the supply there still won’t be enough to go around.
Thus - why do people assume this will solve the problem? Wishful thinking? Hoping? Praying? I have never seen any sort of numbers on this, or anything from opt-out systems. DO they solve the shortages or not? Surely someone somewhere has looked into this, I want to see the actual results, not wishes.
I would love to hear that such a system does result in a situation where everyone who needs a new organ gets one but I’m not willing to take it on faith.
Who is assuming this? Apart from Damuri, that is.
Emphasis mine (well, partly, you seem to be fond of bolding, italics and ALL CAPS). I didn’t put emphasis on “SOLVE” and “end shortages” because that would have made it too busy.
Emphasis mine.
Alleviate: to make easier to endure; lessen; mitigate:
I think you’re misunderstanding why the majority of the pro opt-out crowd in the thread supports opt-out over opt-in, Broomstick. Excluding an already named exception I don’t think any of us labour under the delusion that the system is somehow an organ donation panacea - it is merely our contention that it is a less shitty system with less needless death and suffering involved than opt-in.
Asking us how it’s going to solve the issue of organ shortages is asking us to defend a position we do not agree with in the first place. It patently isn’t. Nothing short of the capability to grow immunocompatible organs from stem cells in a lab, or the ability to make long-lasting mechanical replacements will end the problem wholesale. But while we wait for that, why not try to ensure that as few people as possible have to die for no real reason at all?
Damuri in this thread, but it’s a meme I’ve encountered before. Usually I assume it comes from ignorance regarding the difficulties in organ transplantation, but sometimes I get frustrated.
Yes, admittedly I like my formatting.
I have ethical issues that treat human flesh as a commodity that can be confiscated by the government. I also object to calling something a “donation” when it’s not voluntary. I think issues of bias and exploitation of certain groups are routinely ignored during discussions of the opt-out system.
No reason? Death just strikes out of the blue?
I totally get that some portion of people needing organ donations are victims of circumstance, but I don’t think enough is done regarding prevention of the need for new organs. Better diabetic control, for example, can prevent or delay kidney damage and reduce the need for new kidneys but, at least in the US, access to quality diabetic care can be an obstacle for the working poor. Maybe better treatment for alcoholism, or earlier intervention, can spare some livers (yes, I’m aware active alcoholics aren’t supposed to get new livers, reformed ones can be eligible, though). Ditto for organ damage caused by other drug abuse, making clean needles might make hepatitis a little more rare, also reducing the need for new livers. That sort of thing. It shouldn’t be all about removing dying organs, there should be a lot more (IMO) on the prevention end so demand is reduced. Which is not to say that isn’t being attempted, but I don’t see ever having enough organs to meet demand so reducing demand (to the extent that is possible) will also help the situation.
In the case of something like bone marrow, which can be donated without long-term impact on the donor’s health, I’d be in favor of financial incentives for living donors. Yes, paying people to donate bone marrow - why not? But I would be against any scheme that compels someone to give their marrow to someone else.
How is it coerced?
You know you can “opt out” in an opt out system, right?
I guess my perception is being shaped by organ donation advocates. They say things like opt out will solve the organ shortage but upon closer reading, they don’t say it will eliminate waitlists. My mistake. Assuming everything else I “know” about organ transplants is correct, I still think opt out at least for one kidney is still a good idea.
I just looked at my DL to see if it indicated I was an organ donor - I’m sure I would have opted in when I got my license, given the choice. That’s how it worked in other states I’ve lived in. But for the first time I noticed that the back of my DL has a check box to mark if I want to donate, along with a place to indicate my blood type and a signature/date line. I filled it all out just now, but signing in a tiny space with a ball-point pen on a laminated card is not easy and I wonder if the ink won’t just rub off in time.
When you add social pressure, threats of not allowing you to have a organ if you can’t donate, and so on it starts to move from “voluntary” to less than that. How easy will it be to opt out? If you’re opting out for a medical reason and you have to give that reason to stay eligible if you need a transplant will your information remain confidential or not?
As always, the devil is in the details.
So why doesn’t social pressure force people to opt in? Why doesn’t threats of putting you behind people who opt in when you need an organ coerce you to opt in?
No details. Everything remains exactly the way it is now but you have to check a box on a form NOT to donate whereas before you had to check a box on a form to donate. I think you are sliding down a slippery slope that lays at the bottom of another slippery slope.
I was surprised to learn that in most cases, even opt-in is just documenting your wishes, to be taken into account by your family/next-of-kin who are the ones who actually make the decision. Even where you are an opt-in registered donor, if your family says no, they don’t take your organs.
If you truly do want to donate organs, make sure the person you’ve designated to make post-death decisions for you understands your wishes and is willing to follow through on them.
I am a big proponent of giving the heirs of the decedent a stipend for the organs of the decedent. Say $10k for the first kidney.
I mean seriously, why wouldn’t you want to give up a kidney after you were dead?
I’m quite certain my heirs don’t need to be bribed to give away my organs. What on earth would they do with them?
FWIW, Spain is “opt-out” when it comes to transplants. By default, if you are Spanish and have not explicitly refused to donate your organs, you will be considered a potential donor if you end up brain-dead.
To be precise, the law in Spain says that “everybody is considered to be an organ donor unless they have said otherwise while alive”. It is also possible to explicitly say that you want to be a donor and get a donor card. What is the difference?
If you have a donor card, your organs will be taken as soon as you are brain dead. If you do not have it, although you are assumed to be a donor unless you had said otherwise in life, what they do is contact the family within 6 hours after brain death has been determined in order to ask them if you had ever said to them that you did not want to be an organ donor. If the family says that you had expressed your opposition to donate your organs, then they won’t take them. Otherwise, they take them.