Organ Donation Should be Automatic!

[belladonna]

@Metacom

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?

I think it’s possible, but it’s not something I’m going to lose a lot of sleep over because I think even in the first generation the number of instances would be quite low. With a policy change this major, word would get around pretty well, especially to those with serious interest in the issue. Rabbis could educate clergy, etc.

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.

That was actually just a little (apparently stupid) joke. Note the

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.

See, I told you I didn’t know a ton. Medicaid is what I was thinking of, not medicare. Thank you for clearing that up.

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)?

Yes. Those who feel they would never benefit from the system are also free to opt out. It’s not ideal, but it would still save more lives than the system we have now. Hell, maybe such a blatant example of the inherent inequality of our healthcare system could help bring exposure and needed solutions to the problem.

[mhendo]

@continuity eror

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.

Whatever else we do, i completely agree that this is an essential first step.

[BrotherCadfael]

@CandidGamera

Me? No. I wouldn’t limit based on any of those criteria. Do I think that potential donors should be able to specify criteria like that? Yup. If they’re such a passionate Orioles fan that they don’t want a Damn Yankee to have their spleen, then let them make that choice, because there are plenty of non-Yankee fans out there that could use that spleen, and being able to specify that will encourage the potential donor to sign up.

OK, if you accept a donor’s desire to limit his donations to non-Yankee fans, how about aother donor’s desire to limit donations to whites only?

[CandidGamera]

@Lightnin'

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 still not getting me, sport. I don’t necessarily believe you when you say it was a misstatement.

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?

It’s actually right at the heart of the matter. “When peoples’ constitutionally protected freedoms interfere with how I think the medical system should work, I would choose the improvements to the medical system over the constitutional rights.” Sorry. The problem isn’t that you disagree - it’s that your motivation for disagreeing makes you, in my eyes, a very dangerous and contemptible sort of person. You have every right to disagree, and for whatever reason, but you and I will find no common ground so long as you hold the Constitution so lightly.

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.

No, we don’t get to your self-wanking hypothetical until later in the post. Do pay attention. We were talking, at this point, about what I’d do.

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.

You constructed that thesis with insane troll logic. 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.

Yes. But there’s a difference between the two, sparky. In the current system - aww, an organ went to waste. Bummer. In your proposed system - aww, a person died because we implemented Lightnin’s proposal for organ donations, rather than just acting on our hippocratic oath and doing our jobs. Boy, were we stupid.

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.

No, I’m not claiming that. I’m saying that your proposal automatically excludes some people… not me, because as I already told you, my religious beliefs don’t prevent me from signing up, try reading next time… from the system because of their religious beliefs.

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.

We’re not talking about the opt-out system here, we’re talking about your proposed “Members Only Club” system. Wherein Mary is a member, but Bobbi is not.

Geez… keep up.

[CandidGamera]

@BrotherCadfael

OK, if you accept a donor’s desire to limit his donations to non-Yankee fans, how about aother donor’s desire to limit donations to whites only?

That is a regrettable consequence of freedom. Some people are racist bastards. It sucks, but we can’t regulate their thoughts or decisions based on those thoughts. They have the freedom to be racist bastards.

Granted, the Interstate Commerce clause has been extended to keep racist business wners from discriminating on the basis of race, if I recall correctly - and while that appeals to my sense of justice, it revolts my sense of freedom.

The upshot here, though, is that Racist Redneck, who previously wouldn’t sign a donor card, because he didn’t want part of his body goin’ to one of “those people” will now sign up, because he knows that won’t happen.

[belladonna]

@CandidGamera

Yes. But there’s a difference between the two, sparky. In the current system - aww, an organ went to waste. Bummer.

In the current system–organs went to waste and a dozen or more people who could have been saved weren’t. You’re damn straight that’s a fucking “bummer”. Could you be any more dismissive or flippant over what is literally a matter of life and death for too many people?

In your proposed system - aww, a person died because we implemented Lightnin’s proposal for organ donations, rather than just acting on our hippocratic oath and doing our jobs. Boy, were we stupid.

You know, I’ve read this paragraph twenty times now trying to parse it, and I still can’t grasp what it is you think you’re saying. Care to elaborate?

[CandidGamera]

@belladonna

In the current system–organs went to waste and a dozen or more people who could have been saved weren’t. You’re damn straight that’s a fucking “bummer”. Could you be any more dismissive or flippant over what is literally a matter of life and death for too many people?

Not true. The organs may not have been in good condition, on closer inspection; The ones that are usable may not type-match anyone in current need. And are there really a dozen “immediate lifesaving” organs in the human body? Lungs, and the Heart, okay. And even those can be simulated or stimulated with machines for a while. And I’m always flippant.

You know, I’ve read this paragraph twenty times now trying to parse it, and I still can’t grasp what it is you think you’re saying. Care to elaborate?

Well, to understand it, you’d first have to understand Lightnin’s proposed hypothetical situation. I’d explain it, but it wasn’t directed at you in the first place, so it really doesn’t matter.

[Lightnin]

@CandidGamera

You’re still not getting me, sport. I don’t necessarily believe you when you say it was a misstatement.

Dude, I don’t fucking well care what you think. I’ve said that I meant “under and opt-out system as detailed by other posters before me.” Now you’re telling me what I meant. Now you’re just being an asshole.

@CandidGamera

It’s actually right at the heart of the matter. “When peoples’ constitutionally protected freedoms interfere with how I think the medical system should work, I would choose the improvements to the medical system over the constitutional rights.” Sorry. The problem isn’t that you disagree - it’s that your motivation for disagreeing makes you, in my eyes, a very dangerous and contemptible sort of person. You have every right to disagree, and for whatever reason, but you and I will find no common ground so long as you hold the Constitution so lightly.

And you seem to think that I’m not entitled to my own opinion- which I’ve said I’ve no intention of acting upon. Who’s more contemptible now?

The ONLY reason I think the system needs to change is that the current system isn’t working- that innocent people are dying because there aren’t enough organ donors. That’s IT. Quit telling me what I think. My disdain for religion has NOTHING to do with my views on this subject.

Look, I’m not forcing you to donate your damn organs- under an opt-out system, you get to opt out. If you don’t want to donate your organs, you don’t have to. The current opt-in system means that people have died waiting for an organ. The current system means that there are fewer organs in the donation queue, which leads to abuses of the system.

@CandidGamera

No, we don’t get to your self-wanking hypothetical until later in the post. Do pay attention. We were talking, at this point, about what I’d do.
You constructed that thesis with insane troll logic. Just my opinion, of course.

And, like assholes, everyone’s got an opinion. And by the way, calling someone a troll is against the rules around here- but you know that, right?

@CandidGamera

Yes. But there’s a difference between the two, sparky. In the current system - aww, an organ went to waste. Bummer.

And someone died as a result. Bummer, as you say.

@CandidGamera

In your proposed system - aww, a person died because we implemented Lightnin’s proposal for organ donations, rather than just acting on our hippocratic oath and doing our jobs. Boy, were we stupid.

You’re assuming that a flaw in the system means that people might die. I say that a flaw in the current system means that people WILL die. If you’re so worried about it, how about we have the system assume, in cases of emergency, that the patient IS a donor? Most organ donations aren’t emergencies, as I understand it.

@CandidGamera

No, I’m not claiming that. I’m saying that your proposal automatically excludes some people… not me, because as I already told you, my religious beliefs don’t prevent me from signing up, try reading next time… from the system because of their religious beliefs.
We’re not talking about the opt-out system here, we’re talking about your proposed “Members Only Club” system. Wherein Mary is a member, but Bobbi is not.

Geez… keep up.

For someone whose religion doesn’t exclude organ donation, you’re sure fighting hard to keep it from happening.

I suggested that method as a way of showing you the problems with the current system. You didn’t get it. Keep up.

Hell, just go away- I’m tired of arguing people who want to argue with the words they, themselves, put in my mouth.

[CandidGamera]

@Lightnin'

Dude, I don’t fucking well care what you think. I’ve said that I meant “under and opt-out system as detailed by other posters before me.” Now you’re telling me what I meant. Now you’re just being an asshole.

No, I’m not telling you what you meant. I’m just saying I don’t believe you when you say that’s what you meant. The truth, only you can know. I form my conclusions based on the evidence.

And you seem to think that I’m not entitled to my own opinion- which I’ve said I’ve no intention of acting upon. Who’s more contemptible now?

I’ve repeatedly stated that, and believe that, you are entitled to your own opinion. If you were to admit that you think cold-blooded murder is A-OK, but you have no intention of acting upon it, I’d find you pretty contemptible, and I’d tell you so. I still wouldn’t be infringing on your right to an opinion.

The ONLY reason I think the system needs to change is that the current system isn’t working- that innocent people are dying because there aren’t enough organ donors. That’s IT. Quit telling me what I think. My disdain for religion has NOTHING to do with my views on this subject.

Your disdain for religion was sufficiently involved in this subject for you to put it in your first post, quite vehemently I might add, that you’d never accept religious objections to organ donation. If you don’t want to talk about your athiestic evangelistic agenda, don’t bring it up.

Look, I’m not forcing you to donate your damn organs- under an opt-out system, you get to opt out. If you don’t want to donate your organs, you don’t have to. The current opt-in system means that people have died waiting for an organ. The current system means that there are fewer organs in the donation queue, which leads to abuses of the system.

Does it? Do you have any proof that, if we went to an opt-out system tomorrow, there would be more organs available? Or is it just wild conjecture?

And, like assholes, everyone’s got an opinion. And by the way, calling someone a troll is against the rules around here- but you know that, right?

Didn’t call you a troll. Was quoting Buffy the Vampire Slayer. “Insane Troll Logic” is when someone puts together an argument that, despite the superficial appearance of have been reasoned, has no rational basis.

And someone died as a result. Bummer, as you say.

Maybe, maybe not. See the rebuttal to belladonna’s first point.

You’re assuming that a flaw in the system means that people might die. I say that a flaw in the current system means that people WILL die. If you’re so worried about it, how about we have the system assume, in cases of emergency, that the patient IS a donor? Most organ donations aren’t emergencies, as I understand it.

If in the event of emergencies, we assume the patient is a donor, then that removes that objection to your proposed system.

For someone whose religion doesn’t exclude organ donation, you’re sure fighting hard to keep it from happening.

Not true. I don’t object to people donating their organs. I don’t even object to the opt-out system. I do object to the Members-Only method, and I do object to compulsory donation. And, in a system just like ours today, but opt-out instead of opt-in, I would opt-out.

I suggested that method as a way of showing you the problems with the current system. You didn’t get it. Keep up.

I’m sorry, it just seemed like something you’d say in earnest.

Hell, just go away- I’m tired of arguing people who want to argue with the words they, themselves, put in my mouth.

I never put words in your mouth. I do question the truthfulness, wisdom, and practicality of your claims, though.

[belladonna]

@CandidGamera

Not true. The organs may not have been in good condition, on closer inspection; The ones that are usable may not type-match anyone in current need. And are there really a dozen “immediate lifesaving” organs in the human body? Lungs, and the Heart, okay. And even those can be simulated or stimulated with machines for a while.

Are you high? No one was talking about organs that were unusable. We’re talking about the shameful practice of disposing of eligible, useful organs as the default. As for lifesaving potential of a harvest, donors can give
Heart
Lung
Kidney (x 2)
Liver
Intestine
Pancreas
Bone Marrow
Heart Valves
All of which could save lives. Not to mention the donations of corneas, skin, and other tissue that could vastly improve the recipient’s quality of life. But you got me, I overestimated by three. I guess that means the obvious superiority of your view has been proven. Shucks. :rolleyes:
Lightnin’–I understand you and think CG is being deliberately obtuse, if it helps any.

On preview, I see that CG doesn’t even object to the opt-out system. In which case, I’m really not seeing where all this argument is coming from.

[Lightnin]

CandidGamera, it seems that the main thing that you’re arguing with me, then is that you think I’m a liar. A few centuries ago, I’d be challenging you to a duel. We don’t do that nowadays, so all I can say is, “Fuck you and the attitude you rode in here on.”

I know what I was trying to say. Seems like you’re arguing just to argue, at this point.

[Steve_MB]

@Lightnin'

And I don’t accept any religious objections.

Too damn bad. This is a constitutional republic, not your personal theocracy.

[CandidGamera]

@belladonna

Are you high? No one was talking about organs that were unusable. We’re talking about the shameful practice of disposing of eligible, useful organs as the default.

Ah, I can see you weren’t following our part of the thread. It began as a discussion centered around Lightnin’ proposed “Members-Only” system. Wherein only someone signed up as a donor can receive organs. It had nothing to do with the opt-out system. Therein lies your confusion.

We were discussing the difference between that system and the current system, and the situation in which the doctors aren’t sure if someone’s signed up. In the current system, organs can go to waste if the doctors can’t verify donor status, which may or may not kill someone. In the Members-Only system, not only do we still have that issue, but we have the more important one - doctors can’t give someone an emergency transplant without verifying their status as a donor, which means someone does die, not just maybe.

Lightnin’ later proposed that the default assumption in such situation could be that emergency patients, in lieu of evidence, are assumed to be donors, which removed my objection to that point - but then he said he was only foolin’ when he proposed that system, never mind.

As for lifesaving potential of a harvest, donors can give
Heart
Lung
Kidney (x 2)
Liver
Intestine
Pancreas
Bone Marrow
Heart Valves
All of which could save lives. Not to mention the donations of corneas, skin, and other tissue that could vastly improve the recipient’s quality of life. But you got me, I overestimated by three. I guess that means the obvious superiority of your view has been proven. Shucks. :rolleyes:

You missed a word of my post. “Immediate”. Which of these transplants can’t be delayed by machines for a month or so?

But it’s a moot point, since you really didn’t understand what Lightnin’s point was… just as I suggested you didn’t in my previous reply to you.

[Domokun]

Though they can do just about anything else and too f’king bad if you don’t like it. I’d be buggered if I’d have the government take my bits and pieces after death without so much as asking nicely first.

[belladonna]

@CandidGamera

You missed a word of my post. “Immediate”. Which of these transplants can’t be delayed by machines for a month or so?

ALL of them. When a person dies because they didn’t get a transplant, do you really think it’s just because the doctors didn’t think to hook them up to a machine? Eventually, everyone needing a donation would be dead without one. That’s why organs are given in order of need. Person A might do okay on dialysis for another month or two, so it goes to person B who’s actively dying.

[CandidGamera]

@belladonna

ALL of them. When a person dies because they didn’t get a transplant, do you really think it’s just because the doctors didn’t think to hook them up to a machine? Eventually, everyone needing a donation would be dead without one. That’s why organs are given in order of need. Person A might do okay on dialysis for another month or two, so it goes to person B who’s actively dying.

Gee, that’s super-awesome. So am I to infer that there’s never enough of any organ, and there could never be enough, even if every single person in the country, nay, in the world signed up? So that, I would be incorrect to argue that a wasted organ doesn’t automatically, always mean someone dies?

[Steve_MB]

@belladonna

ALL of them. When a person dies because they didn’t get a transplant, do you really think it’s just because the doctors didn’t think to hook them up to a machine?

I thought it was clear that CandidGamera meant using machines to preserve the organs (a simpler process than keeping the would-be recipient alive through advanced organ failure).

[DoctorJ]

Exceptions might be made if they were actually quitting or had quit the habit in question. Maybe.

As many have suggested, this is an ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT of anyone getting an organ donation, at least in my experience. For instance, someone getting a liver transplant (at least in my state) has to have abstained from not just alcohol, but from all illicit substances, for at least six months before he can even be put on the list. If there is very much question at all about the patient’s ability to stay clean, he’s not getting the transplant. I cannot imagine that this is any less true for smokers.

Regarding religious objections: are there any major religious groups left that oppose organ donation? The last time I looked it up, the only ones set against it were Shintos and certain Gypsy groups. Hell, even the Jehovah’s Witnesses have come around, provided the blood has been properly drained from the organ. (Speculation at the time was that this was due to a high-ranking member of the organization who needed a kidney transplant.)

[Pho_King]

In your proposed system - aww, a person died because we implemented Lightnin’s proposal for organ donations, rather than just acting on our hippocratic oath and doing our jobs.

I could see this happening if the doctors involved with the particular patient were also the surgeons who put the organs in people but AFAIK there are emergency surgeons and transplant surgeons and the two don’t do the same job so it’s not a case of “Hey, I really could use that heart in one of my patients” because the surgeon only handles people who are bleeding to death or are having a heart attack, never people who have congenital heart failure. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong. Besides, wouldn’t the hippocratic oath violation thing happen in a known organ donor anyway if that really were the case? And then, with the opt-out, you most likely have more people who are donors (I see it as very unlikely that there would be that many people sticking it to the government) and so you don’t have to wait around for an organ donor to die.

@Lighnin'

Howzabout we make it so that only signified donors can receive organs, should they need 'em?

Because some organ recipients’ bodies are so shot that none of their organs are reusable. Besides, aren’t kids ineligible from donating their organs at all? I know that they can’t donate blood or marrow. That would prevent them from recieving. Of course I don’t think it’s right to stick it to non-donors even though I would like to.

How about this? An opt-out system but if you have a John Doe and he/she never is identified, you don’t remove the person’s organs unless the person carries a donor card in case a situation like this arises. For people who are really paranoid about their organs not being put to use, they could have a tattoo put on their inner thigh or something that says DONOR with a date (since you have to wait a year after getting a tattoo to donate blood and possibly certain organs) and friends and family will not be allowed to deny or allow donation unless the potential donor is still a minor and then only the legal guardians may make that decision.

Besides, it’s probably not a good idea to harvest organs from someone when their medical history is unknown.

So, this is an opt-out system where identifiable people are automatically assumed to be organ donors unless they specify otherwise and unidentifiable people are automatically assumed to not be organ donors unless they carry a donor card.

To prevent unwanted donations from taking place, all government forms will have a place to check yes or no on if you want to donate organs and doctors will be encouraged to ask their patients if they would like to donate their organs. This includes driver’s license forms, passports, W-4s, 1040s, green cards Yes, it will be annoying but I would rather that a million people be annoyed than one person not have their last wishes fulfilled.

In addition, you have an aggressive ad campaign where the new system is explained and organ donation myths are debunked in mailings, posters inside government buildings, and TV and radio spots. There would be three TV/radio ads- one explaining how the system works, one discussing organ donation, and one urging people to carry donor cards with them anyway.

With all of this, I would assume that 90% of the people who were still unaware of the program would be in the John Doe group as they would probably not have government-issued identification.

Or we could have the system I have proposed but only have the opt-out for identifiable citizens and resident aliens. Anybody else will be able to opt in.

Feel free to poke holes in my argument.

But about indicating that you’re a donor on your driver’s licence, they’ve stopped doing that in some places. In Texas, they used to have a place on the DL to indicate if you were a donor or not but now they don’t and it really sucks.

My Og, this is a long post. Sorry.

[CanvasShoes]

Oh HELL no. I don’t want to end up hanging by wires in the Jefferson Institute!!!

But seriously? I don’t think that anyone should be forced to do anything he/she doesn’t want to do with their body.

If this became an automatic thing, what would prevent some doctor’s from “playing God”? That is, deciding “oh well, this wino isn’t all that important, but little Jimmy needs his cornea, we’ll just pull the plug” kind of thing?