Is opting in that onerous?
Yeah, is that wrong, somehow? 
It’s a matter of semantics I think. While it’s a doctor or private citizen who would be removing the organs they are doing so because the state has decreed that all citizens are donors by default. In fact, would this law obligate medical technicians to harvest all organs of possible use (with discretion of course)?
Someone’s freezing to death in Siberia because you’re spending precious resources on the internet instead of sending them oil to burn. That’s really a very silly argument.
I’m an organ donor and when my father passed away we unanimously decided that they could harvest from him whatever possible. However, I don’t believe it is the government’s place to make us all donors by default. I shouldn’t have to jump through hoops if I don’t want my organs harvested. It doesn’t matter if you think my reasons are irrational, stupid, or just plain crazy.
You don’t think the medical profession would have any ethical qualms about harvesting organs without permission?
When someone who is an organ donor dies what do they do now? Same answer.
Not the same thing at all. Donating an organ requires nothing from me and takes nothing from me nor my family. As you said, I’d need to give up internet access if I want to send some oil. What do I give up if I donate some worm food?
I agree. It doesn’t matter what reasons you have for not wanting to donate. If you don’t want to donate, just say so. But don’t make that default position. It should be as easy as possible, and even easier than signing up to donate now.
The process is called “Organ** Donation**”, not “We’re taking parts of your body because some silly liberal thinks we ought to and you didn’t say we couldn’t so nyah-nyah”. If someone chooses to give his organs via donation, there’s a form for him to complete. If that form isn’t properly completed, and/or the family members don’t grant permission, then the organs rot with their owner. That’s what the law is now, and that’s what the law oughta stay.
It seems to me a quite inconsistent situation if a corpse does not become part of the estate… (IANAL, no idea how this works)… but if my body is mine while I’m alive… and is my “possession” like… (he says reaching across his desk) this cell phone, then when I die the cell phone becomes part of my estate… why wouldn’t my body?
Personal opinion for the OP: Easy opt-in, unless we want to consider UHC (which we have here in NZ) in which case easy opt-out… non-donors having lower priority than donors seems fine (although perhaps often pointless).
One thing I am quite strong on – If I want to be a donor I don’t like the idea that my next-of-kin get to say “no” against my (pre-death) wishes. Now, maybe that’s inconsistent with corpse-as-estate, and maybe not. I get to distribute my estate as I will (with certain legal restrictions and potential for challenges), I think organ donation should be similar… 1/2 to wife, 1/2 to son, except ugly vase to Aunt Ermentrude and organs to donation… you want to challenge get a lawyer and an injunction, but no simply turning the organ donation co-ordinator down with a vague negative.
You’re not a typical big-C conservative are you? 
Heh…it’s kinda funny. Before I went to law school, I thought I was a liberal. I was in the military at the time, and I was the most liberal person in my daily life. Got to law school, and my views didn’t change much, but my environment did. Among my classmates, I was definitely one of the more conservative members of the class. This board is much like law school from a political perspective…warped heavily to the left, which makes me appear further to the right than I actually am.
I don’t think its really relevant to my point. In the current situation they can’t take them without permission due to gov’t intervention. If we changed that in the way that Bricker suggests, then they could take them if they wanted to, there would be less gov’t intervention. Hence my point.
Presumably if a hospital had ethical qualms about taking them even if the law permitted it, they wouldn’t be required to do so, so there would still be less gov’t intervention, even if the organs stayed with the corpse.
Don’t be so sure. My mom was old and a heavy smoker and drinker, but someone got her corneas. I’m tearing up right now at the thought that someone can see because of her.
The views I’ve seen you express here have always seemed very consistent, with a strong preference for personal freedoms and personal responsibility… which pro-choice and pro-marry-whoever-you-want fit with… it just seems (from what little I understand of modern US politics) that the big-C conservative area has been influenced / co-opted by the religious right, which then (IMO) inconsistently ends up pushing pro-gun (for example) right-wards and pro-choice left… making you a most atypical conservative. (And much more interesting)
Your colleague has a pretty bizarre definition of property rights. If I don’t own my own body and control my own body, then claims to own things outside my body and control it are tenuous at best. My right to dispose of my own body in accordance with my wishes (notwithstanding I don’t know the law in this area except that in California a spouse owns the body of a deceased and then next of kin, one of the big reasons the AIDS crisis exacerbated the lack of gay rights) should actually be greater than that of my right to dispose of things. I can legally encumber real and personal property, but not my body under the constitution.
While I am personally an organ donor, I do want the worms to get the remains and not be cremated. I certainly do not want to be forced to donate.
What form are you talking about? I became an organ donor by taking an ink pen and applying a single checkbox to the back of my drivers license.
As to the OP, mark me down in support of this idea. I honestly can’t think of what else someone would want to use their organs for, so if they’ve got no specific plans for them, there’s no reason they shouldn’t go to people who need them. Sure, let people opt out if they’ve got some pressing concern, but make donation the default assumption.
Would such a law pass Constitutional muster? Are there possibly unintended consequences? (I don’t mean something silly like doctors killing patients to get their juicy juicy organs.)
Why don’t we let people negotiate a fair price for their organs? Then everybody walks away happy, making fully autonomous decisions about their body, and there is a much larger supply of organs to go around. I really don’t see the downside here.
I wish people would stop calling this hypocrisy!
If I don’t want my organs donated for whatever reason, it does not automatically follow that logically I must not be willing to accept an organ donation.
There are all sorts of scenarios in which I might be willing to take something I’m not willing to give that don’t make me a hypocrite.
It’s a stupid argument and scores zero points from the judge from Vermont.
It looks like the judges from some of the other states may disagree with the gentleman from Vermont.
To me it looks exactly like hypocrisy; you want to take advantage of a system without being willing to support the system. There aren’t enough organs to go around as it is- why should someone who isn’t willing to share be allowed to play with everyone else? It’s kind of like taxes- if you aren’t willing to pay highway taxes, why, exactly, should you get to use the roads my money built?
What do you think about organ donors getting to be in line before non-donors?
Singapore does have an opt out system - it is legally mandated that we must donate.
Muslems are exempted (for religious reasons) from the opt out. But may still opt in if they wish
New Zealand is opt in (mostly via driver’s license). There I am opted in. In fact in Singapore I also opted in prior to the law change. My family also has instructions to give away my organs in such a situation.
When my mother died, she hadn’t made a declaration - we gave away her organs, and I never thought about it again (actually I don’t even know if they were ultimately used).
As to the hypocrisy of wanting to benefit when not willing to give - just a thought on this one.
From my values, you dun give, you dun get.
But what about Muslems? If I am not wrong (and I may very well be), Islam allows for a Muslem to receive an organ donation, and also to make a living transplant (as in give a kidney or liver) but for burial rights the whole body must be present - which negates organ donation on death.
I think in this situation its perfectly valid to opt out, but still expect to receive - after all, if somebody else is religously ok with donating, why shouldn’t the Muslem benefit?
It is blatant hypocrisy to expect to be able to receive a donated organ, but also be unwilling to donate yourself. There is a substantial shortage or organs in this country and people frequently die while waiting to receive an organ transplant. Obviously it won’t be “a heart for a heart, an eye for an eye, a liver for a liver, etc” give and take between donors and recipients (since donated organs aren’t typically used again after being transplanted), but the theory is to increase the available pool of donor organs and most of the needs would be better covered.
Treating the organs as part of the estate is both illogical and only going to worsen the problem. Firstly, organs are not easily transferable-unlike assets or property, and after the donor’s death they only have value to the recipient. Organs that are suitable for donation but which are not used are wasted. Someone made a silly comparison that this is like taxing your entire estate to pay off the national debt. Which would only be comparable if your heirs were planning on piling up your entire estate and lighting the whole shebang on fire. Even still, no one dies because of the national debt. Secondly, treating organs as some “asset” of your estate (with an assumed monetary value) is only going to inject financial profit motive into the whole system- are we going to have to wait for organs to clear probate? will your heirs try to pull the plug on you sooner to get more return on your organs? does the organ donor receive any benefit from a change like this?
I would favor an opt-out system, requiring nothing more complicated than the current opt-in system, with one minor change. When you go to sign your form, you also sign an agreement that should you ever need an organ, you will be placed on a waiting list and once every organ donor’s needs have been met, you will be considered, with every organ donor that gets put on the list while you wait being moved ahead of all of the non-donors.
Also, it’s come up a couple of times in this thread, but I haven’t seen anyone argue non-donation for a religious reason. Are there really any theists (of any leaning) that would argue they would refuse donation based on religious beliefs but who would still be willing to accept a transplant? I can understand Jehovah’s Witnesses, but they tend to refuse both ways. Does anyone really believe they would be denied a place in heaven based on the fact that they lost their ‘wholeness’ in giving an anatomical gift? It would seem to be the perfect example of altruism, giving something with no expectation of reward.
It isn’t a question of what’s onerous. This kind of opt-out law switches the default locus of responsibility away from the person where it belongs, to the government where it doesn’t.
As mentioned, it is rather like a law saying that the government gets to spend your money if you die intestate. That’s an opt-out of the same principle, except about money instead of organs. People’s bodies are much more a part of them than their money, therefore it is that much more important to ensure that they keep their rights.
Regards,
Shodan