Stop calling it “donation” if you want to impose penalties on non-participants.
Gee, that’s really going to suck for those who can’t be on the list due to medical reasons… who will also probably be more likely to need a new organ. Well, I suppose it is a way to cut demand…
Is eligibility assessed when you volunteer as an organ donor? I figured I’d just put my name on the list and let medical authorities figure it out if the time ever came. I’ve never had to provide proof that I’m healthy enough to donate.
Well, sure, these days you just indicate you volunteer and they asses later on, but would that apply under Dr. Strangelove’s system?
If you’ve ever had cancer you can’t be a donor, period (well, maybe corneas). As just one example of a medical exclusion.
Well, that’s changed since I last checked… which is fine.
Yeah, I’m not watching that either. < shudder > But I’ve also been an organ donor since I was 18 and I’ll be 48 next month. To the larger issue at hand… I think we ought to have an opt-out system here too. However, since that’ll never happen, I say if you’re so beholden to your own damn organs and choose not to donate because you’re religious / stupid / icked out / believe one bullshit story about how doctors will let you die to get them, then no organs for you from others if you need them. Simple simple.
Sounds good. I don’t want my organs removed and I don’t want someone else’s inserted and then have to take meds for the rest of my life to not reject them.
So you’re opposed to organ donation, then. When the consequence of not donating is to be denied medical care and be abandoned to a slow and painful death, it is no longer a donation. But I suppose “organ extortion” doesn’t read as well, now does it?
If your perverse and barbaric scheme were ever to be implemented, here’s what I’d do; I’d sign up to be an organ donor.
I’d then file the necessary documents to grant power of attorney to a trusted family member, and instruct them that, in the event I am near death, they are to object to my organs being harvested and block their harvesting by any means necessary, because I refuse to submit to blackmail.
Yes, the intent would be to include anyone that consents, regardless of suitability. As well as any of those that cannot legally consent (children, etc.).
And contrary to what Smapti said, it is not a punishment, since no one has rights to another’s organs in the first place. You simply don’t get the benefits of the system if you consciously choose not to participate in it. Anyone that decides not to participate is in the exact same position as they’d be in if everyone used the same moral calculus.
It didn’t happen either under French law, even though it was in theory on opt-out system. Hospitals just wouldn’t go against the family’s will. I’ve been told that it was the case even when the deceased positively made known that he agreed to have his organ harvested, even though I don’t know if it’s true and to what extent.
As for the reasons, my mother opposed the harvesting of my father’s corneas on the basis that “he had suffered enough during his life”. So, nothing rational here. She knew that I wanted my organs to be harvested, and even though she seemed to have no objection, I didn’t trust her not to nevertheless oppose it if I had died, because of the emotional turmoil and of her natural tendancy to retroactively change other people beliefs and opinions into her owns (like deciding after their death that both my father and my elder brother were believers).
Then stop calling it “organ donation”. A donation is, by definition, offered without expectation of compensation or reward. Mandating that someone offer up their organs for harvesting in exchange for access to medical care is not a donation - it’s blackmail.
It’s not donation, but it’s not extortion, either, since, well, you’re dead (I know that you think you might not be dead but let’s assume here that you really and truly are).
And in any case, even if you see things otherwise, it’s still not extortion, rather an agreement entered willingly : “If it comes down to that, you can take my organs, and in exchange, I can get yours if you’re the one dying”. Seems a perfectly fair deal to me. And I can’t see on what basis you have a moral issue with it, unless you also think that “I’ll lend you my lawnmower when you need it if you lend me your power drill when I need it” is also blackmail and extortion.
If I’m dead because I’ve been allowed to die, or been declared “dead”, for the purpose of taking my organs, then it definitely is.
It is wrong to deny a person medical care that will save their life. A lawnmower is not a human heart or a liver or a kidney. If it has been donated - not stolen, not harvested, not extorted, not cajoled out of them through threats of neglectful homicide, but donated - then it should be made available to any person that it can help.
That’s not true at all. Sperm donors, egg donors, and even blood donors are all compensated to some degree. Egg donors in particular fully expect to be compensated and there would be fewer were that not the case. Although “donation” sometimes carries the connotation of charitable giving, that is not always the case and certainly is not here (any more than “electron donor”).
You have said that you believe putting yourself on the donor list has a chance at shortening your own life. This belief is false, but let’s suppose it’s true. By allowing yourself to be a recipient, you are then shortening the lives of others in order to extend your own. There are few moral positions more contemptible than that.
So should we start paying organ donors, then?
They agreed to donate their organs. If their lives were shortened, it is through no action of mine - their organs would have been harvested whether I needed one or not. Much like the hamburger I had yesterday - the cow wasn’t slaughtered because I was hungry, and if I’d decided to have a salad instead, the cow would have been no less dead.
If the logistics could be worked out and the system made safe, I would definitely support that. But I suspect that preferential treatment with regards to the recipient list would work just as well in encouraging donation.
I find it amusing that your example is exactly what I’d use to argue the opposite.
Your claim is false, of course–by allowing yourself to be a recipient, you create demand. The fact that you are mixed in with millions of others doesn’t eliminate your moral obligations one iota.
Cows are grown to meet demand. By eating beef, additional cows are slaughtered on your behalf. You may not be able to point to a particular cow, but it is there nevertheless.
I tentatively agree.
I, as an individual, cannot affect the state of the beef industry by my choices as a consumer. If I abstained from eating beef for the rest of my life, it wouldn’t amount to a single cow not being slaughtered. If lots of people were to start abstaining from beef, it would have an observable effect. The extent of my consumption is too small to be measurable on a practical scale and therefore may as well be zero.
Getting back to the issue of organs, it’s not possible for me to “create demand”. The demand exists because of the facts of human biology. I can’t just choose to not need a new kidney, for instance.
I think that’s awesome. You want to live your life a certain way, so you’re willing to back that up. Unfortunately, everyone else I’ve ever met feels entitled to an organ that they themselves would not be willing to give. They are the cowards. It’s a shame and I long for the day that at least an opt-out system will catch those folks who are too lazy to do just that. Than maybe the organ donation rate won’t be so abysmal in this country.
So you’re saying that the possibility of having your organs harvested is scary, then?