I guess that makes sense, though IIRC opting in only requires putting a check mark in a box that is right there on the form. So I’m really talking about people that consciously will not do it as opposed to those that haven’t thought about it or inadvertently missed the box or whatever.
FWIW, organ donation should be mandatory.
If your personal or religious beliefs make you want to withhold your organs for whatever stupid reason, fuck you.
Now that your spleen is vented, you should donate it.
But who would want that nasty thing?
Mandatory… donation.
…What?
If you think you have the right to harvest me for parts against my will, then go climb a tree.
Smapti, you mentioned your fear of the possibility of inferior or non-treatment in order to obtain your organs. What if there was no question that you were beyond being saved; do you still object? In other words, are you concerned that someone will take them prematurely or do you object on a level that it’s just wrong to take someone’s parts? If the latter, can you explain further? Not trying to start a fight; just trying to wrap my head around your reasoning.
I would object to having my organs harvested regardless of my prognosis if doing so would shorten my life by any amount of time.
I do not have a moral objection to organ harvesting in and of itself. If you want to be an organ donor, go for it. I strongly object to the idea that organ harvesting should be compulsory (at which point, insisting on referring to it as “donation” is nothing more than bald-faced propaganda) or that it should be the default. I don’t trust a for-profit medical industry to do so in a way that best serves the public good at the expense of its own short-term profits, and I think we could have done away with the practice decades ago if we’d put serious effort into cloning research.
We can’t even clone replacement organs for non-human animals despite the lack of political opposition, so the idea that we could have been replacing human parts decades ago is ridiculous.
But political opposition is the problem. If not for the backwards, irrational, anti-science objections to cloning human organs, there’d be more funding available to conduct research into cloning animal organs, so that that research could be applied to humans.
Instead, we’ve created an environment where it’s more profitable to let people “die” so we can cut them up for parts.
Can you give me an example of someone who was “allowed to die” for organ harvesting purposes? From a reputable source?
True, objections by the relatives is probably more frequent, and isn’t going to be helped by a checkbox on one’s ID. You can want to donate your organs, but if your relatives object then it won’t happen. At least not under present US law.
I’ve already cited the case of Caroline Burns, an organ donor who was “declared dead” so she could be harvested, then proceeded to wake up just before her vivisection.
She proceeded to recover from her “death” another two years before she committed suicide.
There is no evidence in your link that her care was deliberately mishandled in order to harvest her organs.
It won’t be against your will; you’ll be dead.
Re the OP: that is one of the stupidest PSAs I’ve ever seen, ranking right up there with “frying eggs are your brain on drugs”.
It was almost enough to get me to remove the organ donor card from my wallet that I signed with witnesses six days after I turned 18 and cut it up; almost enough to have me remove my driving license, on which I have indicated my desire to be an organ donor, and cut it up; and to tell all my family members–parents, siblings, aunts and uncles, cousins–that I have been telling–repeatedly–for the last 40 odd years that I wish to be an organ donor that I’ve changed my mind.
Well, that’s bullshit, as it happens. I still wish my organs to be harvested after my death to help anyone who is in need of them. If someone makes a profit off it, that’s a shame, but my parts will have still gone to someone who needs them.
It’s still a stupid PSA.
This to me is the crux of it. There are any number of superfluous issues that can be raised but at the end of *the day * (the literal, all important end of the day) a body is dead. Politics, religion, sentimentality or just a weak constitution doesn’t change this fact, as much as we may want it to. I’m interested in other peoples’ opinions but nothing will ever sway me from my surprise and, frankly, disappointment that people would put their idiosyncrasies above the possibility of helping someone, specifically or in the general sense, in need.
Of course, the for-profit medical industry gets to decide for itself what they consider “dead” to be, and they’ve decided to cling to a nearly half-century-old standardthat doesn’t account for advances in medical science since then, allows them to declare people who still have signs of advanced cognitive function to be “cadavers” so they can harvest them fresh, and were oh-so-coincidentally adopted right when organ donation was coming into vogue;
If protecting the patient’s life were a true priority, the industry would adopt better standards. Instead they choose not to check for signs of life as thoroughly as they could, because they’re more interested in profiting off organ harvesting than they are in saving a potential donor’s life.
I am not obligated to die for the sake of “helping someone in need”. Nobody is.
No religious qualms. She didn’t express any rational reason whatsoever, just ICKKKKKKK.
My husband and I are both donors, of course, but our parts are getting pretty old and worn out.
On a funny (well, given the circumstances which were pretty horrific) note: A friend of ours was crossing the street and was killed by a hit and run driver - who was never caught.
His family opted to donate his organs. At the wake a week or so later, his brother told us that there were several families having a much better Christmas than theirs, as a result.
Now, this fellow enjoyed his ethanol, and had a well-exercised elbow from visits to the local bar. So, when it was announced what parts found new homes, the universal reaction was “How wonderful… but… HIS LIVER???”. We all decided that it was a well-exercised organ and therefore very, very strong.
May your children’s parts also get pretty old and worn out.
How’s that for a toast?
There’s no need to make it mandatory or even a default opt-in. Just make it so that if you aren’t a donor, you don’t get put on the recipient list (assuming you have normal adult cognitive abilities).
People like Smapti can then base their moral calculus on weighing the potential lost lifetime due due not having an organ versus the infinitesimal possibility of dying early due to organ harvesting.
That.