But why does that lack of consistency invalidate my point? I would say that most organ donations are roughly analogous to leaving your money without any stipulations to some charity–let’s say Catholic Charities. In this case, you are trusting them to use your money wisely, and there’s all kinds of things they can use it for. Similar to donating your organs without directing them to a particular person. You assume the organizations that administer this will handle it as best they can, and that’s good enough.
But leaving your money to your family (or anyone in particular) is analogous to a directed donation. You have decided in either instance that your primary objective is not to ensure the most dire need is met, rather it is to satisfy the need of someone who is special to you in some way, for whatever reason. Certainly there are lines people cross that make us roll our eyes, questioning the wisdom and fairness. Someone leaving a million bucks to her cat while kids are starving, for example. But it’s just a question of degree, isn’t it? Leaving my money to my family, again, probably doesn’t help the most destitute people it could.
I do, and believe me, your point isn’t lost on me. I am glad there are organizations dedicated to this for the organs out there that haven’t been directed to a particular person.
As I’m sure you’ve surmised, I would say that UNOS doesn’t get to decide, not to the extent where they should be able to override someone’s personal decision. And that does not for a second mean they wouldn’t have a point regarding who is most in need.
I’d have to think more about this, but I think I would be OK with it.