The law should be obeyed. That doesn’t mean that a law can never be questioned or that nobody can ever make an effort to change it. All I stated there is that violence and disobedience are not valid methods of protest.
I don’t consider it ethical to cut someone up for parts who hasn’t made a conscious and affirmative decision, free of duress, that that’s what they want done to them when they’re dying or dead.
In our system, we respect the wishes of the dead in regards to the disposition of their property as informed by their will and their estate. I see no reason why one’s most intimate and inalienable piece of property, their own body, should be treated with less regard.
This can just as easily happen now with opt-in donations. In fact, it’s MORE likely to happen now, because of the scarcity of organs making them that much more valuable.
The true default is that your dead body lays where you died and decomposes. But modern science has developed much, much more productive uses of dead bodies. They discovered that sometimes organs from the dead can be used to save the lives of the injured and sick. Pretty much everyone agrees that that’s a far better use then letting the organs rot.
Oh… what’s that? You want a third option? You want the option to cremate or bury them with all of their dead organs which are now useless to a them? Um. I guess you can do that. But why would you?
Some people bury treasure, too. Put it away so no one else can have it. Difference is: those people dig the treasure up later and use it. Dead people and their dead organs? Not so much.
Only because it might affect you, I suspect. When others protest injustices going on, your response is generally, “it’s the law, therefore, it’s moral.”
I don’t think I have EVER seen you say anything else. You said the moral thing for slaves to do was to obey their masters – you thought that was the most important thing to do. Yet here, you’re not saying, “well, if it’s opt-in, and that’s the law, that’s the moral thing to do – follow the law.” No no no no.
Yes: in the UK, which is where this discussion stems from (and, no, I’m not saying that the hospitals and doctors magically live on air, of course the money comes from somewhere, but it comes in block budgets that do not create financial incentives or disincentives for any particular clinical decision in any individual case).
If the law is that organ donations are opt-out (which is what I assume you meant to say), then that is the law and it should be followed. You’re not going to see me burning my driver’s license or handcuffing myself to the front door of a hospital because I disagree with organ donation policies.
I will continue to disagree with it and I would advocate for a return to opt-in, but if that’s the law, then that’s the law.
And that’s great, but the decision of whether or not to do that needs to be made by the individual, and it needs to be a conscious, affirmative decision free of duress. I wouldn’t feel comfortable accepting a transplant from someone whose organs were only harvested because they were “lazy” about opting out, or who only became a donor for fear of being denied medical care if they needed a transplant. And despite all the naked disdain for non-donors that’s running rampant in this thread, I suspect you wouldn’t either.
Again, that’s the individual’s choice to make. My mother, for example, has made it clear to me that when she dies, she wants to be cremated intact and her ashes scattered at a location which is significant to her. It’s not my place to question her wishes, and I would feel guilty if I didn’t do my utmost to carry it out for her.
What if they don’t give a shit, as evidenced by them not opting in or opting out specifically? And public campaign to get people to opt in you would probably call duress.
But if someone dies without a will - in other words not opting in to providing information about how to divide ones estate - there are default heirs. Ones the decedent might not want to inherit. So same thing, really.
I’m fine with making opting out as easy as opting is today, if not easier. But there has been plenty of research on defaults, and I’m sure that there will still be a big increase in available organs to save lives.
Then it should be assumed that they’ve opted out.
When I say “duress” here, I’m referring specifically to the “if you opt out then you should be ineligible for an organ transplant” idea that inevitably gets bandied about in any of these types of threads. If you want to encourage people to opt in and promote it publicly, go for it. “Become an organ donor or we’ll let you die if you get sick” isn’t encouragement, it’s blackmail.
But with an opt-in policy many people are not allowing their organs to be donated without a conscious decision on their part.
Since opting out would be done when renewing a drivers license or some such, there would be no coercion and no pressure. The person making the decision won’t be in a hospital. With a plentiful supply of donors there would a lot less incentive for a doctor to ask if a dying person would be willing to donate. That can be done without coercion - it’s not like they are going to refuse treatment. Given that the person is dying, it won’t make much difference anyway.
But I have a real easy solution. Someone who has felt coerced into opting in can smoke, drink and sit on their butts - and no one will want their damn organs.
But they are just as likely to be fine with donating - the small number of default opt outs who don’t opt out when opt in is made default shows that.
I’m not for that - bad PR - but I see the point. Your analogy is flawed - it would be more like someone who votes against food stamps or refuses to pay taxes that pay for food stamps being banned from getting food stamps at some point.
But to be sure - a big campaign, with leaflets inserted into license renewals for opting in would be fine with you.
That’s already how opting in is done in every state I’ve lived in. When you’re filling out your form to get or renew your ID/license, you fill in the yes or the no on the “Do you wish to be an organ donor?” question.
As suggested upthread;
I suggest you take that up with your “allies” who think blackmailing people for their organs is a fantastic idea.
Whenever this comes up I always wonder where people who can’t donate - cancer history, some viral disease, other anomaly - would stand in such a system? Unable to contribute means you can’t get on the list?
IMO, absolutely not. If you have a valid reason for not donating (basically, anything apart from “I don’ wanna!”) then you should be eligible. I just want to try and weed out the Smaptis of the world who’d gladly take a donor organ but wouldn’t deign to donate their own and pay it forward.
“Paying it forward” is not and should never be a condition of receiving charity. The entire point of charity is that you’re giving without expecting anything in return.
The entire idea is bollocks anyway - anyone who’s in a condition to need an organ is probably not going to be fit enough to have any suitable for donation. This has nothing to do with the greater good and everything to do with threatening people into compliance because you’re afraid you won’t be able to get an organ unless you force someone to give it to you.
Dude, you’re dead: you’re not going to put up much of a fight. Also, once you’re dead, you’re not a “someone” anymore, you’re a “something”.
Wait what?
Brain death is death. If your brain is dead, it doesn’t matter how good your heart is working - you’re dead. You’re not coming back. I thought we learned this lesson a decade and change ago when we hooked a dead woman up to machines and had a big stupid fight over whether or not we could let her heart stop beating.
Anyways, let’s not get too bogged down in weird philosophical arguments about ownership that don’t actually matter in checks notes 100% of cases. There’s a tradeoff here - for people who don’t care enough to carry around a card or register their will with the required authorities, do we want to:
A) Sometimes violate their wish, as dead people, to not have what were formerly their organs removed
B) Sometimes ignores their wish, as dead people, to have their organs go on to save lives, and let a lot of people who would otherwise live die
This is one of the easiest tradeoffs in the history of the world. In one case, we respect the wishes of someone who is, by definition, already dead. In the other case, we save someone’s life. And since we know that there are real, consistent biases that consistently lead to far more people being willing to donate than being willing to go through the work to list themselves as donors, it feels even easier.
Frankly, I don’t care what corpses want. I will gladly respect the hell out of your sovereignty while you’re alive; once you’re dead, there is no amount of comfort in the world that could make anything better for you - you are dead. The needs of the living outweigh the superstitious whims of the dead every single time.
Is there any evidence that more than a tiny minority feel the same way as Smapti? If not, then I’m entirely comfortable ignoring such a harmful, ridiculous, anti scientific, and mostly support free view.
As I said in my post (#44), my system would supply organs even for people aren’t donors, but donors would get first priority.
I would make exceptions for children, and for the types of people you mention. The thing is that, if we can get more people involved in the system, all of this could be moot because we’d be far less likely to end up with organ shortages.