# Organ Donation Should be Automatic! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 11, 2005, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organ-donation-should-be-automatic/284224 "2005-01-11T16:04:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![belladonna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9fc29f/32.png) [@belladonna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/belladonna)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organ-donation-should-be-automatic/284224/201 "2005-01-13T14:42:55Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > …I die and in my will, leave $5000 in a college-education-only trust fund for a young cousin. Selfless? Sure, I wasn’t motivated by concern for myself. Heck, by your logic, I don’t even exist anymore, so it can’t be anything _but_ selfless. Conditional? You betcha. I don’t think that’s an example of a selfless gift at all though. It’s an inheriitence, given because, being dead, you have no more use for it. And considering it’s saddled with conditions which you, the giver, based on your own priorities, it certainly isn’t free of self. Not to say it’s not a lovely gift, or one that should go unappreciated, but selfless? Not at all. Along the same lines, I don’t know if I would even consider organ donation to be a selfless gift on the part of the donor. They’re dead, they can no longer “give” at all, selflessly or otherwise. If anyone could be said to be giving a gift in this scenario, it would perhaps be the donor’s mother. After all, this is something she herself has created. Something designed, built, and birthed by her own body that is now being used to support a system that doesn’t carry her blood. I don’t think a mother should be able to override her grown children’s wishes to donate, but still, I can see the gift in that. Actually, I’ve been really surprised by the responses my little OP has spawned, and while I haven’t agreed with everyone who has responded it’s been fascinating reading. I wrote this out of frustration and a feeling of hopelessness, and I really thank those who took the time to read it an evaluate their own stance on organ harvesting. You never know the good you might do with such a simple choice. Thank you to the well-wishers for my cousin, I can only hope they work. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organ-donation-should-be-automatic/284224/202 "2005-01-13T16:08:34Z")
> [@Lightnin'](#): > > Like? > [@Bone](#): > > If there is even a single iota of a chance that a person’s life may not be saved due to the desire to harvest more useable organs, I’d say ruling out the possibility of organ donation mitigates that. It’s a completly rational justification that is not religious. If there is an infentisimle (sic) chance of extending my life vs a chance at saving a random person, I’m going to choose me. You may disagree, but it’s not irrational. * * * **Dio** , I don’t understand your position then. Can you clarify? You said these three statements: > [@](#): > > I am opposed to the opt out. I think once a person dies, the body should become the property of the government to harvest, experiment on, eat or burn as it sees fit. > [@](#): > > Well, maybe that was spoken in a little bit of haste. I think I would like to revise that simply to state that the government can take possession of a body if it is in a compelling public interest to do so (such as saving a life). > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > > [@Metacom](#): > > > > Given that, after the organs are transplanted, plenty of people will have made money on them, do you think the government would then owe the persons estate any money? > > How’s anybody going to make money off them? > > I guess I don’t have a problem with compensating survivors. Does the second statement replace the first? If you believe the government ought to be able to take possession of a body in the interest of saving a life, but then also believe that a form of compensation would be justified, does that not recognize an inherent value in the body that is being taken? If there is no value, what would be the purpose of the compensation? If there is a value, wouldn’t it follow that someone has an ownership of that thing that possesses value? I still see a contradiction. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organ-donation-should-be-automatic/284224/203 "2005-01-13T16:41:13Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I still see a contradiction. You ain’t the only one. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The moral imperative to save human life trumps any obligation to humor superstious beliefs about dead bodies. This statement speaks volumes. What Diogenes considers a moral imperative, he thinks should trump one of the basic rights in our Constitution. A little tyranny in the name of one man’s so-called morality. And here I thought Dio wasn’t a George W. Bush fan… ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organ-donation-should-be-automatic/284224/204 "2005-01-13T17:10:24Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > This statement speaks volumes. What Diogenes considers a moral imperative, he thinks should trump one of the basic rights in our Constitution. A little tyranny in the name of one man’s so-called morality. > > And here I thought Dio wasn’t a George W. Bush fan… Dio’s relationship with Dubya would seem to parallel that of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V and King Francis I of France: “My cousin Francis and I are in complete agreement – he wants Vienna, and so do I.” ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organ-donation-should-be-automatic/284224/205 "2005-01-13T17:37:32Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > Dio’s relationship with Dubya would seem to parallel that of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V and King Francis I of France: > > “My cousin Francis and I are in complete agreement – he wants Vienna, and so do I.” Hee. That’s priceless. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organ-donation-should-be-automatic/284224/206 "2005-01-13T17:49:59Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > It’s a completly rational justification that is not religious. If there is an infentisimle (sic) chance of extending my life vs a chance at saving a random person, I’m going to choose me. You may disagree, but it’s not irrational. > > * * * > > **Dio** , > > I don’t understand your position then. Can you clarify? > > You said these three statements: > > Does the second statement replace the first? > > If you believe the government ought to be able to take possession of a body in the interest of saving a life, but then also believe that a form of compensation would be justified, does that not recognize an inherent value in the body that is being taken? If there is no value, what would be the purpose of the compensation? If there is a value, wouldn’t it follow that someone has an ownership of that thing that possesses value? > > I still see a contradiction. No contradiction, I just said I wouldn’t oppose giving the survivors some money to shut them up if it would help to save human life. I’m not opposed to _not_ compensating them either. I’m just saying I would _concede_ it to get my hands on the organs. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organ-donation-should-be-automatic/284224/207 "2005-01-13T17:53:30Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > You ain’t the only one. > > This statement speaks volumes. What Diogenes considers a moral imperative, he thinks should trump one of the basic rights in our Constitution. A little tyranny in the name of one man’s so-called morality. > > And here I thought Dio wasn’t a George W. Bush fan… How does it trump anyone else’s rights? I have not advocated abrogating the rights of any living person. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organ-donation-should-be-automatic/284224/208 "2005-01-13T18:26:39Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > How does it trump anyone else’s rights? I have not advocated abrogating the rights of any **living** person. And G.W. hasn’t advocated abrogating the rights of any **heterosexual** person, so that’s just fine then? You’re missing the point, which is this : Screw your idea of morals. I’ve got my own. So does everybody else. Government has no business imposing anyone’s morals on anybody. Especially in direct violation of the First Amendment. And yes, deciding how I wish to be buried, cremated, or disposed of, according to religious custom, is part and parcel of Freedom of Religion. And even if you stubbornly refuse to accept that, then we default back to the survivor’s rights - it would become the wife, or children, or parents decision as to what to do with the body, according to their religious customs. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organ-donation-should-be-automatic/284224/209 "2005-01-13T18:30:58Z")
The government already dictates what survivors can and can’t do with the body. What’s the difference? And the “heterosexual” analogy doesn’t work. cadavers are not people. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organ-donation-should-be-automatic/284224/210 "2005-01-13T18:39:50Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The government already dictates what survivors can and can’t do with the body. What’s the difference? > > And the “heterosexual” analogy doesn’t work. cadavers are not people. According to you, they’re not. According to G.W., homosexuals don’t seem to be. At least he’s treating them like they’re not. That’s your belief, not mine, in other words. You’re welcome to it, really. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organ-donation-should-be-automatic/284224/211 "2005-01-13T18:45:12Z")
That’s what I’m talking about when I talk about stupid superstition. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organ-donation-should-be-automatic/284224/212 "2005-01-13T18:49:10Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > That’s what I’m talking about when I talk about stupid superstition. Stupid Superstition protected by the First Amendment, you mean. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organ-donation-should-be-automatic/284224/213 "2005-01-13T18:52:37Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Stupid Superstition protected by the First Amendment, you mean. Show me where it says dead bodies have a right to free practice of religion. Do they have a right to vote as well? Do they have to pay taxes? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organ-donation-should-be-automatic/284224/214 "2005-01-13T19:02:35Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > No contradiction, I just said I wouldn’t oppose giving the survivors some money to shut them up if it would help to save human life. I’m not opposed to _not_ compensating them either. I’m just saying I would _concede_ it to get my hands on the organs. Can you clarify one more time for me? Would the pay out be to “shut them up”, or to compensate the person(s) for something being given up? If it’s just to shut them up, wouldn’t it also follow that you’d be okay with paying people to shut them up, should they complain loud enough? If it is to compensate the person(s), wouldn’t it also follow that those persons are giving something up and that there is some value in the body? If you were against the opt out, and against paying the people in any way, and believe that the bodies should be confiscated in the interest of preserving current life, regardless of what the deceased or the deceased’s estate wants, I’d say that would be consistent. I would disagree with that, but it would be consistent. Did I characterize your position accurately? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organ-donation-should-be-automatic/284224/215 "2005-01-13T19:22:56Z")
I don’t believe the survivors are morally entitled to any compensation but I would concede it as a political trade-off to get the legislation passed. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organ-donation-should-be-automatic/284224/216 "2005-01-13T19:27:23Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Show me where it says dead bodies have a right to free practice of religion. > > Do they have a right to vote as well? Do they have to pay taxes? I think you’re being purposefully obtuse, now. Let us hypothesize that I belong to a religious order that requires my body be buried intact. We shall call them the Movementarians, as I don’t think we’ve had a Simpsons reference yet in this thread. I, as a Movementarian, have certain beliefs, and the right to act on those beliefs. Acting on those beliefs, I direct that my body, upon my demise, be buried whole. If the government stops by five minutes after I flatline, carts up the body and ships it to a dissection plant, they have violated my right to practice my religion. I’m not there anymore, and I certainly can’t sit up and complain, but nevertheless, I had made a specific choice based on my religion and the government is prevented from invalidating that by the First Amendment. Furthermore - the things I owned in life - including my body - do not automatically become the property of the government. That violates all kinds of property rights. If my remains belong to any living person, it is my next of kin, and for the government to take my body without consent would constitute illegal seizure of property. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organ-donation-should-be-automatic/284224/217 "2005-01-13T19:36:45Z")
A dead body has no rights. ---
**Author:** ![belladonna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9fc29f/32.png) [@belladonna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/belladonna)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organ-donation-should-be-automatic/284224/218 "2005-01-13T19:40:41Z")
Let’s suppose my religion says that when my parents die, I am to bring their corpses to my home, set them up in a charming vignette, and leave them there for two years. As much as I’m going to want to do this, because it’s my religion and what I deeply believe is right, I would not be permitted to out of concern for the health of others. How is prohibiting a religious act because it could harm others any more morally justifiable than requiring an act because it will help others? If we can do the first, why can we not do the second? I recognize that corpse disposal rituals vary across cultures/religions/etc. However, they’ve all evolved from the general fact that the corpses and living shouldn’t mingle, so we burn or bury our dead. It seems to me that we’ve reached the point, technologically speaking, where the dead are capable of more than rotting and spreading disease, but our superstitions and rituals haven’t caught up yet. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organ-donation-should-be-automatic/284224/219 "2005-01-13T19:41:15Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > I, as a Movementarian, have certain beliefs, and the right to act on those beliefs. Acting on those beliefs, I direct that my body, upon my demise, be buried whole. > > If the government stops by five minutes after I flatline, carts up the body and ships it to a dissection plant, they have violated my right to practice my religion. I’m not there anymore, and I certainly can’t sit up and complain, but nevertheless, I had made a specific choice based on my religion and the government is prevented from invalidating that by the First Amendment. > > Furthermore - the things I owned in life - including my body - do not automatically become the property of the government. That violates all kinds of property rights. If my remains belong to any living person, it is my next of kin, and for the government to take my body without consent would constitute illegal seizure of property. The government can (and does) require autopsies under certain conditions regardless of religious beliefs or family preferences. Samples are kept from autopsies, and are not disposed of with the remainder of the corpse. Would you feel that this is an action of government that violates your belief? ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organ-donation-should-be-automatic/284224/220 "2005-01-13T19:46:12Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > A dead body has no rights. When I made the choice, I was a living citizen. Just as I was when I wrote my will. My death doesn’t invalidate the will, it activates it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organ-donation-should-be-automatic/284224.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organ-donation-should-be-automatic/284224.md?page=12)