I’ve long thought that the U.S. should shift to a presumption of consent for organ donation, with an opt-out option and, say, two years’ notice ahead of time and plenty of PSAs about it. Nobody should die while waiting for an organ to become available for a life-saving transplant.
Why do you hate capitalism? You some kind of socialist now?
Yes, they do. You’re simply wrong about the facts regarding this.
If you had written “I don’t think my property rights should cease upon my death”, nobody could say you were wrong, but that isn’t what you said, is it?
Smapti: we won’t be around all that much longer. If I die before you, it’d be great if you could benefit from the shell I leave behind. If you do not want to match my offer, that’s cool, I understand. But how’s about a little flexibility on the opt-out thing? I’m sure it can be developed in a way to ensure that your choice will be respected.
I just checked how to opt out using the website linked to in the OP. Man, it couldn’t possibly be simpler. Literally all you have to do is click ‘Opt Out’ and then put in your name and address. Takes less than 60 seconds. If you’re really so het up about it, you have zero excuse for failing to opt out.
No horseshit. Which made my garden flourish.
It may be true that a small number of people will end up as donors. But the pool pf potential donors grows significantly.
In my daughter’s behavioral economics class, she shows a chart of Europe with the percentage of people in the donor pool for each country. There are massive differences. It turns out the only factor explaining this is opt-in versus opt-out.
The default position on something is very important, not just because people are lazy, but because the default is used as a signal for what society expects.
You might want to stop getting your information from bad 1980s scifi novels.
And I hope for your sake that if you ever need a heart or a kidney the potential donor doesn’t share your views.
While I have some queasiness with an opt-out system, it IS a system where if you don’t want to be a donor you can declare that. You still have a choice.
It may not be legal for her to do that.
You could, however, donate your body to a body farm where not only would various scavengers be able to dine upon it and return you to nature in a very natural manner, but you might well aid both science and law enforcement forensics. One difficulty for some reading this is that at present body farms only exist in the US and Australia.
It’s exactly as easy to opt in, so there’s no reason to change the status quo in a way that negatively impacts millions of people’s human rights.
And, added bonus, you’d get to creep people the f::ck out: Human Corpses Keep Moving for Over a Year After Death, Scientist Says
Changing it to opt out will make people who don’t care at all about this issue more likely to be donors, and that saves lives.
Why you are so against saving the life of a living person at - maybe - the expense of a dead person?
We evict dead people from their homes. You upset about that also?
Screw that! I wanna be part of a wolf! It’s my right!
Let’s go to the quarry and throw stuff down there what the fuck?
-
As has been repeatedly explained to you, you’ve no “right” to your organs after you die.
-
Doing it this way results in fewer people dying on transplant lists. If it’s as easy to opt out as it is to opt in, we might as well do it this way. Don’t like it? Opt out.
-
Taking this out of the realm of the theoretical and philosophical, it’s abundantly clear that if such a system was ever introduced in the US, you would opt out at the very first possible opportunity. Like, you’d probably break a land speed record rushing to your computer to opt out. And that’s fine. It’s your choice. However, since countries with ‘opt out’ programs see a rise in the supply of donor organs and a corresponding drop in waiting lists, in some small way, your odds of long term survival will improve. Given that you absolutely positively 100% definitely will opt out immediately at the first possible millisecond, why are you against this? I get the philosophical objection, but what’s your practical objection? You’d be safe from having your organs donated against your will, because you’d opt out immediately, and if ever you needed an organ you’d find yourself on a shorter waiting list. So why does this upset you so much? In practise it can only benefit you.
-
Just as an aside, I’ve often thought that (with some obvious common sense exceptions for kids and such) only people on the organ donor list should have the right to receive organs if they need them. Everyone else can just go die. Too bad, so sad. Should’ve opted in when you had the chance etc… I’d be interested to hear what you’d do if such a system was ever implemented in the US.
Thank you for illustrating my point. You and yours don’t want to encourage more people to voluntarily give their organs to those in need - you want to threaten them into obedience by taking away their right to medical care, so that when someone decided they’re “dead” you can chop them up and sell their parts for profit to the other people you’ve blackmailed into obedience.
It’s only a stone’s throw from there to you lying in your hospital bed after a minor surgery when a nurse comes in and informs you that the governor needs a new heart and you’re compatible, so the attending physician has declared you dead and they’ll be performing the extraction in ten minutes.
So in other words, if it doesn’t meet how YOU feel about the law, then it’s suddenly wrong?
Well, considering what you’ve said about slavery or the civil rights movement…
So according to your logic then no, having the right to your body after you die, will NOT be moral, at least not in the UK.
(Can’t have your cake and eat it too, Smapti)
There is a certain poetic justice to it.
If you’re not willing to donate your organs, why should you receive any? I note you didn’t actually answer this question. You just used it as a jumping off point for a massive rant that has absolutely nothing to do with what I actually wrote.
And what’s this bullshit about “selling” them? You’re literally the first person to bring money into this. That’s just some crazy projection on your part.
Okay, this should be good. Kindly elucidate, step by step, precisely how you get from “Only registered donors should receive organs” to “The governor needs a new heart so now we’ve fixed your hernia we’re going to kill you”.
A “donation”, by definition, is not contingent on what one has done in the past. You’re basically suggesting that unless someone has personally fed and housed the homeless, they should be allowed to go hungry if they become homeless themselves.
I am not aware of medical institutions that perform organ transplants for free. Are you?
Your argument for opt-out is that it increases organ availability.
So, therefore, you’d have even better availability if there’s no option at all and everyone is automatically a donor no matter what.
And once it’s assumed that everyone’s organs are up for grabs, well, if one person’s parts can save three lives, then it’s simply selfish of them to keep them to themselves, aren’t they? They should be encouraged to give up their own life for the needs of the many.
And once that’s acceptable, well, why ask for someone’s permission before euthanizing them to save others, especially if that person is far more valuable to society? Surely President Trump’s life is more valuable than that of some blue collar schlub who’s too lazy and stubborn to realize that his organs are destined for a greater purpose.