People’s lives could be saved in all kinds of ways. You could force people to stop smoking. You could make them eat an Atkins diet. You could drag their asses to the gym and hold a gun to their heads until they do enough reps to satisfy you.
If you can invalidate a man’s consent for this purpose, just because you personally find it justifiable, what is to stop someone else from invalidating your consent for a purpose they champion?
Oh, I know it’s extremely difficult. It’s not 100% unworkable, but it is very, very difficult. Believe me, I’ve thought about this issue - what if they resume smoking afterwards, etc. To briefly gloss over your questions, I could, for instance, specify that the recipient of my lungs must sign a contract stating he or she won’t ever smoke for the rest of their life. What happens when the contract is broken? I’m dead, so I can’t sue - but, depending on the system set-up, someone else could. Maybe it’s my attorney, for my estate… maybe it’s a small governmental organ-donation agency that keeps track of all the organ donations with odd conditions and keeps them on file. The consequences of a proved breach? Confiscation of the lungs for redistribution to someone who qualifies, possibly.
Or one could set up a slightly less draconian system - allowing the donors to put no restrictions on future behavior of the donors, only past behavior, so one doesn’t have to deal with contracts and breaches.
I think your entire belief system is based on a faulty assupmtion. Most people who get a transplant for an organ destroyed through “fun living” tend to clean up really fast. People that destroy their lungs due to smoking tend to become vehement anti-smokers after the transplant. Those that do go back tend to number very, very few. So you’ve built your entire house of cards on punishing everyone for the sins of a tiny minority. If that’s consistant with your belief system, and you can live with that, then OK, to each his own.
But it would be pretty funny if you were dying in a hospital bed and the transplant that could save your life was not forthcoming because a would-be donor wanted to punish a complete stranger’s sins. That’d learn ya.
Thank you Lib, for summing it up so succinctly.
sigh As I said, I didn’t say it because other dopers had said it more eloquently than I can. I’ve stated that that was what I meant. Shall I go back and change my post? Oh, darn, can’t.
Should I accept that stance, since apparently that was how my message came across? Nope- can’t do that, either.
Can we drop this, or do you wish to remain pedantic?
head explodes AND YOU CAN STILL DECIDE! Opt-OUT. OPT-out.
My opinion has none, zero, zip, nada influence on the disposition of your remains! I can think what I want, I can say what I want, but I Can’t. Fucking. Tell. You. What. To. Do. Got it?
Hopefully you won’t actually, you know, need an organ yourself. Maybe then you’d think that the system isn’t quite working. You don’t want to donate now, but I bet you’d want an organ should you need one.
You never answered my proposal. Howzabout we make it so that only signified donors can receive organs, should they need 'em? We’d have to put in safeguards, of course, to prevent people from signing up just because they suddenly need an organ. That way your religious objections can be satisfied, and if your god or selfishness demand that you die with your organs intact, then you at least aren’t a potential drain on the system.
I swear, I’ve never been so ashamed of fellow dopers as I am in this thread.
If we’re assuming a soap-opera like scenario where I’m dying, and the doctors come in and tell me that they’re sorry, but every person they can find who has compatible organs for me was ethically opposed to donating because they fear the misuse of their organs, because somehow the doctors mystically know this, so we can have our proper level of irony, I’d be okay with it.
The same way they know they have to go to the DMV and get a license if they want to drive. The same way they know they need to file their taxes every year if they want to avoid an audit. The same way that they know that children are entitled to a free public education. Really, how are any of the day to day systems of modern civilization supported? People know because that’s how it is. There might be some initial problems, but after only a generation the policy would simply be part of day-to-day reality.
Well, why would people without health care plans be dying in hospitals and thus subject to harvest in the first place? 
I admit to not knowing a ton about private vs. public insurance, but aren’t the poor eligible for Medicare? That’s the only coverage my cousin has and he’s still on the waiting list. We’re having to do a lot of fundraising, but he hasn’t been denied acess to the list simply because he’s not wealthy. Cases of people without even Medicaid coverage are sad, and I agree with you that this system would not benefit them. Which is all the more reason to support national health care, IMO.
You’d have to ask the poster who first mentioned it. When I wrote my OP I was unaware that such programs existed overseas, but learning that they do certainly gives me hope.
So be it, then. At least you can rest assured that you’re pretty safe from anyone using you for a heart transplant. Your brain is probable yours to keep as well.
Lib et al, I see a huge difference between the rights of someone over their living body, and the rights of that person once they are dead over their dead body. So it would be intollerable to force someone to live healthily, but that is in no way related to requiring someone to make their organs available for medical use once they are dead. I would allow people to opt out, since they may have a hangup over the idea of their body being used that way once they are dead. I don’t believe a dead person owns their body, nor should it necessarily be inherited by their next of kin, instead it is a resource that should be used for the good of others either through organ donation or medical examination/autopsy if that is helpful.
Let’s put it this way. You say you were supporting the “Opt-Out” notion from the beginning, but I didn’t see you on the bandwagon until you got called onto the carpet. 'Nuff said.
Do you understand the hypothetical I presented above? Wherein your opinion shapes the laws? My point is that you’d do away with key aspects of the freedom of religion if you could. I understand you can’t do this, but I also understand that you’d like to.
I’d take one if it were available, certainly. I don’t think there’s any ethical morass surrounding accepting a donated organ.
Well, one, the medical team may not be able to verify a person’s organ donor status in time. Two, it nearly amounts to religious persecution. It’d be like distributing free universal antibiotics to the general populace - but only embedded in pork. Three, its still not satisfying the requirement of individual choice… if Mary Sue wants her heart to go to Bobbi Jo, her cousin with a congenital heart defect, at the time of Mary’s demise - and Bobbi Jo isn’t signed up, it’s still not right to keep Mary’s heart from Bobbi.
That’s mean. You’re mean. C’mon, have a heart.
I prefer the system we have now where people are required to volunteer if they want to donate their organs. My body doesn’t belong to the state and they don’t have any business harvesting organs without my specific say so. I shouldn’t have to jump through hoops to “not consent.”
Marc
You should read Larry Niven’s “ARM” stories, if you’re interested in science fiction. They take place in a world where the government actually does precisely that.
So - on the plus side, we’d resemble a real-world version of pulp science fiction stories. On the other hand, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the ACLU and plenty of other NGOs would spontaneously combust from sheer indignation.
I’m not suggesting forcing anybody to do anything. The issue was a system with the occasional accidental body getting their organs incorrectly posthumously harvested in the case of no driver’s license, etc. Not a government program made to deny people their decision, but a system where rare accidents might happen.
Also note that I asked my question in the form of what is a worse problem. IMO, forcing people to do those things you mention would in fact be a worse problem than the people dying because of lack of excercise, smoking etc.
If somebody thought of near-perfect opt-out system, to essentially eliminate the possibility of somebody who had not wanted their organs to be harvested from being harvested, would you still be against the opt-out? Or is your objection only because of the “error” cases where people’s will is not followed?
Would you really consider filling out a postcard and dropping it in the mail “jumping through hoops”? Or logging online and filling out an e-application of some sort? Why would it have to be any more complicated than that? And if retaining your organs after death was so all-blasted important, wouldn’t these small things be worth it a hundred-times over? I don’t understand this attitude that organs you *won’t be needing because you’re dead * are important enough to hoarde to your(corpse)self, but not important enough to fill out a form to “save”.
Right. So would you agree, that, until that generation had passed, you would likely have cases where people who didn’t know about the opt-out requirement and who probably would have opted out if they’d known about would have their organs removed?
Because hospitals are legally required to provide care to people who are about to die. They are not required to provide care for chronic conditions requiring organ transplants.
No. Medicare is for the elderly and the disabled. Medicaid is for the poor, but it’s not an organized federal program in the same way that Medicare is.
So, given that some classes of people wouldn’t benefit from the opt-out system, would you still be in favor of implementing it (without also implementing socialized health care)?
It seems like you (and many others) don’t really know how donation works. It’s not like Mary can just designate that her heart to Bobbi Jo. With the exception of live donations (i.e. kidney), organs go into a central “bank”, and are distributed based on a number of criteria. Most urgent need, blood type, tissue type, and geographic location are among the criteria. And yes, doctors make judgement calls on whether they think a patient will abuse the new organ. They judge so you don’t have to.
And I’ve corrected that particular misstatement. You seem to be presenting it as the cornerstone of your disagreement with me. Mind if we drop it? I can’t go back and change the original post. If I could, I would, if only so you’d drop this shit.
You’re right, I probably would- I think that religion is a great danger to modern society (this is a perfectly good example). This is America, in which opinion DOES shape the law. I’m in the minority, and so I don’t think your religion is in any danger. Christians are apparently in the majority- if you don’t like the fact that people disagree with you, try to get some laws passed that keep that from happening. I don’t think you’ve got a shot, but you’ve got a better chance than I do.
Again, this is completely tangential to the argument, so drop it, okay?
Nope. If you don’t want to donate, you can’t play the game. If you don’t feel the need to donate, you don’t deserve to get a transplant. At least, that’s the way it should work.
Anything else is pure selfishness.
And, speaking as an atheist, and therefore an outsider looking in, I don’t think you should be able to call yourself a Christian if you believe that non-donors deserve transplants. Just my opinion, of course.
Determining whether someone is an organ donor or not, in time to save the organs for use by someone else, is a problem under the current system.
Religious persecution? Don’t make me laugh. You’re claiming that your god doesn’t want you to donate organs? Then HE can prevent you from needing organs, yourself. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.
And if Mary Sue wants her heart to go to Bobbi Jo, she can still do it under an opt-out system, just like she can under an opt-in system. If I choose to give you my heart (since you certainly seem to need it), I should be able to do that (or not), under either system.
I could be wrong, but I believe lung recipients have to be smoke-free for a certain period of time before getting the transplant. Same for liver recipients/alcohol.
While I’m 100% in favor of organ donation, I’d be against an opt-out system. To me, it seems like the state is “assuming” your property (and organs are personal property, even after you’re dead) without your permission, and then making you sign a paper in order to keep it. This just seems wrong to me. I think that if we want to get more organs out there, we first have to make changes to our current system. Do you know how many organs are lost every year from people who are registered donors but whose organs are denied by relatives who are anti-donation? That’s where we need to start–making sure that every person who is listed as an organ donor gets to donate, despite what relatives say. We should also spend more money on advertising organ donation. Many people don’t even know how easy it is to be a donor, or are misinformed about it (for instance, thinking their church is against it even when it isn’t, or thinking it gives doctors the right to take organs from your still-living body). Seizing people’s organs without their permission would just make people resentful, and I think there’d be a horde of people opting out just to stick it to the government, a “how dare you take my organs!” kind of thing.
Encouraging more people to donate organs is the way it should be handled. Legislating any system of automatic organ harvesting could be abused:
First, the argument of who gets the organs and who gets to make that decision. If a dying person can make a will, and dispose of their possessions as they see fit; why not their own body? You can even state who will have custody of any children; and you can give your corpse to a medical school if you wish, but you can’t decide to give a kidney to a specific person? You can donate a kidney while you’re alive, but your death invalidates your wishes? There needs to be more consistency here before one can make such sweeping changes.
Second, the slippery slope: Someone else made a reference, maybe in jest, about the death penalty for more crimes and the State executing people to harvest organs. Larry Niven’s Known Space storeis, especially the “Gil the ARM” stories, show a utopian society that lives off the organs of criminals, literally. I don’t like the idea that people can become collections of organs, waiting to be harvested like animals being taken to slaughter. The slippery slope is that once it becomes mandatory to donate, someone will be watching the supply. What if (a big one) a need arises, through an epidemic of some sort, of a specific organ like a kidney or pancreas? Who ghets covered and who is left out because of the shortfall? What measures will be taken to get the rest of the needed organs? Put this power in the hands of a totalitarian state, and we deivide humanity into two groups- the privileged, who get the doanted organs, and the rest, who give up their organs so that others can live.
Third: the religious arguments. Keeping out of the subject of their validity, what happens if an exception is made, and most people use the exception to get out of donation? What happens when a shortfall of organs occurs? Will there be a litmus test of the validity of religious beliefs? If we say a Hindu can make this choice, what about a Sub-Genius or a Scientologist? Who decides?
Fourth: the uninsured. Why shoould the poor live only to give their organs to those who can afford to take them? This is akin to slavery.
No, compulsory donation is a bad idea.
Excellent post. I agree with everything you’ve said.
Opt-out is just not viable from a practical point of view. What’s really needed is education on the subject. But seeing the posts by certain Dopers coughlibandcandidcough doesn’t inspire a lot of hope in me.