# Pros and cons of "presumed consent" organ donating **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 12, 2010, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218 "2010-05-12T20:45:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/41 "2010-05-13T07:58:50Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > and why let real people die for a potential abuse? Because some people who might otherwise recover will die. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/42 "2010-05-13T08:00:42Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > This same problem exists already for known organ donors. Why wait? And speaking of popular media, there was an episode of \*Law and Order \*on exactly this, a doctor choosing to harvest organs early and being tried (and convicted) of murder. Such crimes are very hard to detect. Just ask the victims of Dr Shipman - he was only caught when he got greedy. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/43 "2010-05-13T08:52:36Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I would be surprised if they charge for the organ. Of course they charge for the procedure itself, and the drugs and medications necessary for the transplant to take, but I very much doubt that there’s any charge for the organ. I have no doubt that they do not actually charge for the organs but charge for the various services surrounding the transplant. Organ preservation, transportation, the procedure itself, the facilities (i.e. hospital), etc. etc. While they do not charge the patient for the actual organ those who provide the above services are still making a profit off of the organs. Any claims that organs have no monetary value are false. Why shouldn’t my family be able to profit from the use of my organs after death? Funerals are expensive. > [@](#): > > Why? Because I don’t believe the default position of the state should be that they have dibs on your body. Whether or not a body is property it implies that we somehow belong to the state which is what I find disturbing. Quite frankly, I’m not even sure the government has the authority to automatically claim domain over human remains. Regulating the handling of human remains for safety isn’t in the same boat as harvesting organs in my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Gedd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gedd/32/4938_2.png) [@Gedd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gedd)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/44 "2010-05-13T13:44:33Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > Organ preservation, transportation, the procedure itself, the facilities (i.e. hospital), etc. etc. While they do not charge the patient for the actual organ those who provide the above services are still making a profit off of the organs. Any claims that organs have no monetary value are false. Quick question. When you receive blood during a surgery or medical emergency are you charged per unit/pint/litre? The people who donate aren’t compensated (except for cookies, fruit juice, and possibly a warm feeling of helping others). I will have to say that organs have monetary value to \*some \*people or else there wouldn’t be a market for them, however black that market may be. AFAIK the reason there is a black market is because organs are so hard to get. If supply goes way up, shouldn’t the market go down? ---
**Author:** ![theR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@theR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/theR)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/45 "2010-05-13T14:18:51Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > People opt out. This means they care what happens to their corpses. There’s evidence that the family sometimes also cares as well. If we presume universal opt-in then we will be going against some people’s wishes as to the disposition of the corpse. > > It’s sort of like if the government went in and stole all your family pictures. What’s the harm? (Of course in that case the bigger question is “what’s the _benefit?_” - which is why we don’t have debates about the government’s right to seize your photo albums.) “The family” is not some distinct entity with a united view. When you die without a will, who gets your property? Not necessarily “the family”. Depending on your locality, it could default to certain descendant(s), may require court action, etc. Again, you seem to be making a lot of assumptions about property transfer at death even if we grant your incorrect belief that a corpse is treated the same as other property. The biggest assumption you’re making is that property automatically transfers to some ill-defined “the family” when someone dies. Even hardcore libertarians should be for some kind of legal framework to set guidelines of how property transfers at death in the case of someone without a will, which means a law stating your organs get donated unless you opt out shouldn’t be an issue. Most other inheritance laws would be difficult to apply to a corpse and its organs since organs are only good for donation within very small time windows and it is difficult to divide a corpse or organs between family members. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/46 "2010-05-13T14:35:53Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > The problem I have with it is doctors and surgeons who may want to harvest organs too soon. “He’s going to die anyway…” Or, “This patient’s organs are going to be very valuable…” While it’s always a possibility when humans are involved that some will be unethical monsters…I think you’re underestimating a doctor’s desire to “win”. Doctors hate “losing” patients (see- it’s right there in the term) and will more often do MORE than most of us would really approve of if we were truly informed to save a life, not less. I think a far more realistic concern is doctors doing too much to save a life not worth living, rather than getting excited over salvaging organs. PLUS, if organ donation were not so rare, organs would not be such a scarce resource. That would seem to lead to less over-enthusiastic organ harvesting, since the doctor won’t feel that this is his other patient’s only chance at a good match. Thousands of people die every day - having access to those thousands of organs makes this one here less critical to get. > [@Miller](#): > > I don’t really get the objections, either. They seem to be entirely based on principle, which is fine, but it seems a kind of stupid thing to get hung up over when there’s no apparent practical downside to the practice, and an enormous upside to it. > > I mean, if everyone is required to donate organs unless they opt out, we get a huge increase in the number of donated organs, saving untold lives. We can all agree that’s a good result. However, the downside to this is that… > > And that’s where I hit a wall. What’s the downside to this? Yes, yes, “the government doesn’t own my body” etc. etc. But so what if it does? Where’s the concrete harm of this policy, other than offending the basic ideal of not giving anything to the government if you can possibly avoid it? I think the concrete harm isn’t to the dead body, but possibly to the family involved. While I agree with opt-out as a model, I do think that the grieving family should be able to opt-out post-mortem. Especially if the numbers of donors vastly increases with an opt-out model, as predicted, I see no reason to torture the grieving who may view organ donation as immoral, against their religious views, or simply just “too icky to contemplate” during a time when the stress is greatest in their lives. Yes, I would hope that people will communicate their wishes to their families, and that families honor those wishes. But at the end of the day, dead Aunt Edna won’t be harmed if I don’t actually scatter her ashes in the ocean or we play rock music at the viewing, nor will she be harmed if she wanted to donate her organs and we don’t do it. Uncle Ernie, on the other hand, might suffer severe emotional trauma at the idea of his precious wife “carved up” after her death, and Uncle Ernie, being alive, is the one I’m concerned about at that point. No slippery slope, just practical concern for reduction of harm to living individuals, leads me to support an opt-out system with that opt-out being extended to the next of kin post-mortem. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Poster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Happy\_Poster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Poster)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/47 "2010-05-13T14:36:34Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Because some people who might otherwise recover will die. This can happen even without organ donation. ---
**Author:** ![Lynn\_Bodoni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/48 "2010-05-13T15:27:22Z")
> [@](#): > > I think the concrete harm isn’t to the dead body, but possibly to the family involved. While I agree with opt-out as a model, I do think that the grieving family should be able to opt-out post-mortem. I don’t think that the family should be able to opt-out if the deceased has made his/her wishes known. Yes, the family is probably in shock, but that’s precisely why they shouldn’t make a decision right then and there, with Aunt Edna cooling down in the next room. Edna had thought about her decision, probably for a while. The family needs time, but Edna’s organs don’t have the luxury of time, they’re deteriorating. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/49 "2010-05-13T15:53:10Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > And I am totally going to steal all of your photos. That crap is worthless, so you don’t mind if I use it for toilet paper, right? I have a use for those photos. Once I’m dead, my family might have a use for those photos. My organs? Not so much. And there is a legitimate benefit if my organs are used by other people. My photos? Again, not so much. > [@Rhodes](#): > > I’m sure she’ll love it. She can show it off to all her friends. “No, it’s not a natural diamond. It’s the remains of my new husband’s first wife! So that every time he looks at my hand he can remember her.” Two years ago, my wife asked to have a ring made for her birthday- it used the diamond from her engagement ring, and two aquamarines (my birthstone) on either side of it. Every time she looks at it, she’s reminded of me. If I die, I seriously doubt she’ll get rid of it. _shrug_ One thing that I’ve noticed in previous threads on this subject is that the people who are most adamant about preventing an opt-out system of organ donation are also adamant that organ donors shouldn’t get sole (or even priority) organ donation, should they need it. So basically, we’ve got people who don’t want to donate organs, but who feel that they should have just as much right to donated organs as those of us who are proactive donors. Personally, I find this more than a little hypocritical. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Scud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f08c70/32.png) [@Tom\_Scud](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Scud)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/50 "2010-05-13T16:04:01Z")
On a practical level, going from Opt-in to Opt-out can decrease participation (as apparently happened in Brazil some time ago), if distrust of the medical profession or the state is at a high enough level. cf [Kieran Healy at Crooked Timber](http://crookedtimber.org/2010/05/05/presumed-consent-in-theory-and-practice/#more-15717) (the comments are actually worth reading). ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/51 "2010-05-13T16:14:53Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > One thing that I’ve noticed in previous threads on this subject is that the people who are most adamant about preventing an opt-out system of organ donation are also adamant that organ donors shouldn’t get sole (or even priority) organ donation, should they need it. So basically, we’ve got people who don’t want to donate organs, but who feel that they should have just as much right to donated organs as those of us who are proactive donors. > > Personally, I find this more than a little hypocritical. I’ve noticed this accusation pops up even when the people who are opposed to an opt-out system say they plan to donate their own organs. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Anaamika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/52 "2010-05-13T16:15:04Z")
God almighty! I’m still using my photos! I’m still using my body, for that matter. When I die, though, I am no longer using the body, and honestly, it’s not really of use to anyone else like the pictures might be. Opt-out is the only way. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/53 "2010-05-13T16:22:29Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > I think the concrete harm isn’t to the dead body, but possibly to the family involved. […] But at the end of the day, dead Aunt Edna won’t be harmed if I don’t actually scatter her ashes in the ocean or we play rock music at the viewing, nor will she be harmed if she wanted to donate her organs and we don’t do it. Uncle Ernie, on the other hand, might suffer severe emotional trauma at the idea of his precious wife “carved up” after her death, and Uncle Ernie, being alive, is the one I’m concerned about at that point. > > No slippery slope, just practical concern for reduction of harm to living individuals, leads me to support an opt-out system with that opt-out being extended to the next of kin post-mortem. Meh. Uncle Ernie will probably suffer even **more** severe emotional trauma when he finds out that Aunt Edna left three-quarters of her vast fortune to the hot Cuban masseur she’s been seeing for the past eight years rather than to him. But the law doesn’t set aside Aunt Edna’s wishes for the disposal of her assets (assuming she expressed them in proper legal form when mentally competent to do so) for the sake of the emotional harm they will cause to living individuals. The law just says “tough titties, Ernie” and acts as Edna directed. And so it should in the case of organ donation. If you think it would be icky for a loved one to have their organs harvested, you should talk to them about that issue and find out what their choice is, and try to argue them out of it if it’s that important to you. But you’re not entitled to veto their choice after they’re dead. And similarly, if you’re rabidly pro-donation and care passionately about saving lives with organ transplants, that doesn’t entitle you to overrule a relative’s decision not to be a donor. Survivors butt out. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/54 "2010-05-13T16:39:34Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Honest question - do I get the organ for free? I honestly don’t know. > > Though for your argument’s sake you’d better hope so. My understanding is that the organ is free, but the operation to remove it, its transportation to the OR, and the operation to put it in are paid for by the recipient - or his insurance. No government. > [@](#): > > And I don’t give two hairy little farts how simple the step of opting out is - it’s work, and it’s something that massive percentages of the population isn’t going to remember to bother to do. This goes both ways - where’s your 60% of opt-inners? So if you can pretend it’s no problem, I can -and **do** - turn it right around and say that opt-in is clearly no hardship and so it’s safe to assume that everyone who doesn’t opt in is actually opting out and therefore their organs shouldn’t be taken. If your view of the world is that we all do all those little things that we wish we had time to do, then it doesn’t match reality very well. In Nudge Sunstein notes that he has lots of subscriptions to magazines he doesn’t read because they are on automatic renewal and he never gets around to canceling them. The 401K situation, in which people turn down free money because they don’t get around to filling out some paperwork, is another example. I saw one reference that said that 80% of Americans are in favor of donation, but it didn’t give a cite to a study. If this were true, would you withdraw your objection? The real reason to default to opt-out is that it saves lives. A person gets to choose whether or not to donate, which is fine, and can opt-out if he cares enough. The recipient doesn’t get the choice. > [@](#): > > Stealing wouldn’t be the right word, becuase it’s debatable whether anything is being taken, and either way the removal isn’t really permanent - the automatic opt-in can be reversed at any time. The organ donation choice can be reversed also - up to the point you die, of course. But money put into the 401K, though still more or less owned by the person, is now pretty well locked up. If it gets taken out by default, and two years later you decide you really don’t want to have it taken out, you don’t get the money back. In the organ donation case, if you are a donor by default, and two years later wake up and decide you don’t want to be, you lose nothing. So I’d say the 401K default mandate is a far bigger EROSION OF LIBERTY than organ donation. > [@](#): > > In neither respect is assumed opt-in and organ harvesting “the same deal”. Before I renewed my license, I might have not opted-in. Now I did. Before I did so explicitly, I wanted to have my organs “harvested” - I’d rather have them cut me up and spread me all around, as John Prine sung. Give my knees to the needy and all that. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/55 "2010-05-13T16:46:29Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > Yes, I would hope that people will communicate their wishes to their families, and that families honor those wishes. But at the end of the day, dead Aunt Edna won’t be harmed if I don’t actually scatter her ashes in the ocean or we play rock music at the viewing, nor will she be harmed if she wanted to donate her organs and we don’t do it. Uncle Ernie, on the other hand, might suffer severe emotional trauma at the idea of his precious wife “carved up” after her death, and Uncle Ernie, being alive, is the one I’m concerned about at that point. > > No slippery slope, just practical concern for reduction of harm to living individuals, leads me to support an opt-out system with that opt-out being extended to the next of kin post-mortem. That’s true, but we mustn’t forget that there is another party to this situation - the person whose life might be saved by the donated organ. Religious belief is a fine reason for someone to opt out. However, I’d be mightily annoyed if my wishes as an atheist to donate were countermanded by a religious relative. And I wouldn’t want to do the reverse either - countermand the wishes of a religious relative who did not want to donate since I as an atheist think those reasons are bogus. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/56 "2010-05-13T16:58:52Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > While it’s always a possibility when humans are involved that some will be unethical monsters…I think you’re underestimating a doctor’s desire to “win”. It’s not the average doctor that concerns me; it’s the unethical one. Or the faceless beancounter / actuary / computer program at the insurance office. It’s better to remove temptation in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/57 "2010-05-13T17:01:15Z")
> [@theR](#): > > “The family” is not some distinct entity with a united view. When you die without a will, who gets your property? Not necessarily “the family”. Depending on your locality, it could default to certain descendant(s), may require court action, etc. Again, you seem to be making a lot of assumptions about property transfer at death even if we grant your incorrect belief that a corpse is treated the same as other property. > > The biggest assumption you’re making is that property automatically transfers to some ill-defined “the family” when someone dies. Even hardcore libertarians should be for some kind of legal framework to set guidelines of how property transfers at death in the case of someone without a will, which means a law stating your organs get donated unless you opt out shouldn’t be an issue. Most other inheritance laws would be difficult to apply to a corpse and its organs since organs are only good for donation within very small time windows and it is difficult to divide a corpse or organs between family members. I’ll thank you not to make a strawman of me in order to attempt to desperately prop ut your clearly fallacious argument, thank you. I never said or implied that a corpse is treated the same as other property, or implied that under current law it is treated the same. (Not that current law matters one tiny whit in a discussion about what _should_ be happening, like the current discussion.) It’s an obvious fact that a corpse is an object. It’s also obvious that, like all objects, some person or persons or collective entities have various claims of ownership and/or control of the body - as in, it’s obviously property (putting aside the case where nobody and no organization claims it). Having established that the corpse is property, we now have to decide whose claims on it get to be satisfied, when they conflict. We’ll start by noting that the state is the ultimate decider - if the state decides that we’re going to take your organs out as soon as you get so much as a head cold, then into the chop shop you’ll go. Of course the state needn’t decide to do this; in fact the state has decided to give some consideration to the wishes of various other people, including the dead person themself, oddly enough. Corpses aren’t the only place the state does this; for some reason the state allows and honors “wills”, rather than just seizing everything upon a person’s death. Having now established the obvious, we can review the situation. Arguments that the person or family don’t own the body are worthless - _all_ ownership is at the whim of the state so there’s nothing magic about the body that makes it ‘less owned’ than anything else. Whether the state _should_ seize your organs or your assets or your family pictures or your children is something that can be debated, but not based on the premise that people can’t own corpses, because that’s begging the question. Trying to argue that “the family” is ill-defined and thus has no rights to anything is, of course, absurd. The point that there is very little time to decide is, of course, not absurd - but does not provide agumentive support for opt-out over opt-in, or vice versa; either solution works. It mainly argues against having a long discussion period while the body sits in the freezer, which we can avoid as easily with opt-out _or_ opt-in. Hmm, looks like when I take out the irrelevent bits, there’s no content left in this post. Which brings us back to what I said before - the pros of opt-out are that it almost certainly guarantees a greater organ harvest and it’s very cheap and easy to implement over other donation encouragment systems, and the cons are that it turns the government into a grave robber. It’s really as simple as that - and let me add that the fact that it’s grave robbery doesn’t necessarily rule it out as a possibility. The government robs the dead already, with inheritance taxes. One could in theory argue that seizing organs could be considered more of the same. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/58 "2010-05-13T17:06:27Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Several studies have shown that when someone starts a job, using a default of opening a 401K dramatically increases participation versus a default of not using one. In the 401K default situation, **which is now law** , do you consider the company to be stealing money from the employee (to put into their account, matched.) It’s the same deal, really. I hope you can’t find a way of claiming the government is taking anything in this case. Which is now law? Please provide a cite for this. To my knowledge there is no legal requirement for companies that offer 401k plans in the US for their employees to automatically enroll a new employee into the plan unless that employee opts out. What you describe is a policy option that many companies have adopted, but is not a requirement of law. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/59 "2010-05-13T17:17:46Z")
> [@Wilbo523](#): > > Which is now law? Please provide a cite for this. To my knowledge there is no legal requirement for companies that offer 401k plans in the US for their employees to automatically enroll a new employee into the plan unless that employee opts out. What you describe is a policy option that many companies have adopted, but is not a requirement of law. I never meant to imply that 401K offering was mandatory. Clearly not. However, the Pension Law removes the reason for opt-in provisions: From [The Wiki entry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/401(k)): > [@](#): > > The Pension Protection Act of 2006 made automatic enrollment a safer option for employers. Prior to the Pension Protection Act, employers were held responsible for investment losses as a result of such automatic enrollments. The Pension Protection Act established a safe harbor for employers in the form of a “Qualified Default Investment Alternative,” an investment plan that, if chosen by the employer as the default plan for automatically enrolled participants, relieves the employer of financial liability. Under Department of Labor regulations, three main types of investments qualify as QDIAs: lifecycle funds, balanced funds, and managed accounts. QDIAs provide sponsors with fiduciary relief similar to the relief that applies when participants affirmatively elect their investments. [12] I confess that everything I’ve read in the press - and from Thaler - did not describe the intricacies of this case, and made it sound as if the default was to be set to starting a 401K. I still think that this is effectively the case. The power of defaults is shown by the fact that if companies make choosing the 401K a default, but also make an elective amount less than maximum the default, 401K contributions can actually decrease. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218/60 "2010-05-13T17:29:49Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > My understanding is that the organ is free, but the operation to remove it, its transportation to the OR, and the operation to put it in are paid for by the recipient - or his insurance. No government. Okay, thanks for the info. > [@Voyager](#): > > I saw one reference that said that 80% of Americans are in favor of donation, but it didn’t give a cite to a study. If this were true, would you withdraw your objection? No, I wouldn’t withdraw my objection, because robbing the graves of 1 in 5 people is still pretty bad. Especially since I think that it would be trivial to accumulate _actual individual data_ about this, which is always better than guessing. And I think the only reason people argue for opt-out over a forced-opt added onto some existing process (like drivers’ liscences or social security or whatever) is because people _specifically_ want to take organs against people’s will. Which is to say, they prefer to steal the things than ask permission, when they can get away with it, and allowing people to opt out at all is a mere sop to try to shut up the worst of the ‘whiners’ while deterring opt-out as much as they can get away with. > [@Voyager](#): > > The real reason to default to opt-out is that it saves lives. A person gets to choose whether or not to donate, which is fine, and can opt-out if he cares enough. The recipient doesn’t get the choice. Yeah, yeah. And the real reason to sieze 100% of income after the first $50,000 is to greatly bolster social programs and handouts to the poor. I can support social programs and handouts and even saving lives without deciding that it’s a blanket justification for anything you can think up. > [@Voyager](#): > > The organ donation choice can be reversed also - up to the point you die, of course. Pretty big caveat, there, eh? The whole point of opt-out, _particularly_ as proposed by the OP where the relatives are barred from having any say, is to get as many people as possible _never to choose_. That is **explicitly** the goal. Which makes this whole “you can reverse it - until you die” as disingenuous as hell and about as disgustingly morally bankrupt an argument as I can imagine. > [@Voyager](#): > > But money put into the 401K, though still more or less owned by the person, is now pretty well locked up. If it gets taken out by default, and two years later you decide you really don’t want to have it taken out, you don’t get the money back. In the organ donation case, if you are a donor by default, and two years later wake up and decide you don’t want to be, you lose nothing. So I’d say the 401K default mandate is a far bigger EROSION OF LIBERTY than organ donation. Putting aside the disingenous garbage that any significant percentage of people are seriously going to think about the issue before it’s too late, which is both the necessary foundation of your argument and clearly disproven by evidence, I would agree that the 401K default mandate is _also_ apparently flawed. I would say that, were we interested in justice (to the detriment of simplicity), we would allow an opt-out period for up to say six months after the first statement is delivered, up to which the person can bail, and get precisely the money that was put in on their behalf, back, with the government collecting any profit an eating any loss. (Possibly with a year ban from 401K contribution if you do this, do deter gaming of it - but serious discussion of such a plan is rahter off-topic, so I’ll stop here.) > [@Voyager](#): > > That’s true, but we mustn’t forget that there is another party to this situation - the person whose life might be saved by the donated organ. No, there isn’t another party - the government is standing in for the interests of the theorized patients. What other interest would they have? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pros-and-cons-of-presumed-consent-organ-donating/539218.md?page=4)