How is not hypocrisy?
You wish to be able to benefit from a social compact that you are not willing to otherwise participate in. There’s absolutely no rational basis for not wanting one’s organs to be donated.
You keep saying that, but you’ve offered no proof that it’s true. I can sell my car- can I sell a lung?
But this isn’t true. Once you die, both your money and your organs are worthless to you. You’re dead. Your estate can make use of your money, plus it is something that is easily used/transferred/stored whether or not it is needed immediately. If you die, but your heirs aren’t desperately needing money, there is no difficulty involved in holding that money until it is needed. There is no possibility or benefit of your estate holding your organs, except to deny them to others that do need them. It’s not like the government is selling them on the black market to fund abortions or some other debatable cause, they are taken at no charge to the donor and given for no charge to the recipient.
The people that need transplants are not entitled to my organs, regardless of whether I’m actually using said organs or not. They can need all they want, I have no obligation to give.
That falls pretty well in line with my pro-choice stance on abortion. Along that line of reasoning my choice in the organ donor question is that I have opted-in. The important distinction is that I have chosen to list myself as an organ donor. The govenment hasn’t mandated that I be one.
Hate to break it to you, but that is more or less how the law is now in every state. IANAL, but Wiki seems quite clear (and is consistent with my own understanding) that if you die intestate,
(1) who your estate goes to is defined by state law, which may or may not have anything to do with where you want the estate to go. The government does get to decide where the estate of someone who dies intestate goes.
(2)If there are no cognizable heirs, the estate goes to the state. So if you die intestate, and nobody qualifies under state probate law, the state does get to spend the money.
My own two cents:
I don’t see anyone arguing that an opt-out rule gives hospitals the power to go against the expressed wishes of a relative/spouse/heir. If they are, I disagree with them. We should respect the wishes of representatives, even after death.
On the other hand, I have no problem with a rule that changes the default. I think that can be done without changing the principle that your body is yours to do with as you will–it just makes you or your representative say what you want, or else state law defines what happens, which may or may not be what you want.
That’s how we manage wills and estates, and I have no problem with it.
Plus, let’s face it–Pragmatically, we should value the possibility that you have a belief about what you want to do with your body that’s strong enough for you to care, but not strong enough for you to actually do anything to tell someone about it.
I just don’t think we should value that remote possibility above the lives of one, three, or maybe even five people (say, heart, lungs, liver, two kidneys) who could be saved by allowing transplant.
Now, as an organ donor, I strongly disagree with requiring organ recipients be donors. I want my organs to save lives, period. If they don’t go to the person who is medically the most needy, and most appropriate, my wishes haven’t been complied with–whether or not that qualification is donor status, wealth, or whatever else.
Transplant recipients (or their insurance companies) have to pay “processing charges” to tissue & organ banks. A single donated corpse can generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in such fees, all charged to the patient receiving the “donation”.
I admit that i sort of like the main premise of the thread. I’d have no objection to organ donation being compulsory. I recognize, however, that passing such a measure would be politically impossible, so for practicality’s sake i’d be happy with an opt-out system.
In my scheme, the opt-out system would not be onerous, but nor would it be simply as easy as ticking a signle box. Also, if you, as an individual, had not chosen to opt out, your family would not be permitted, after your death, to opt out on your behalf.
Also, i absolutely love this idea:
Of course, this policy would need some safeguards in place, so that someone who had chosen to opt out could not bump themselves up the list by then choosing to opt back in after finding out that they needed an organ.
There are persistent rumours that these concerns are not so specious if you’re in China, especially if you’re a criminal. Allegedly.
Are they specious? Doctors and medical insurers have already shown that they are prepared to, even inclined to, take all my money and physical possessions, including a lien against my house, mostly because they want money. Are we confident that they would behave entirely differently about my organs, which they also want?
Do more people end up dead that way? If so, it’s a shitty thing to do.
Why haven’t they already tried to do this, if they’re so bloodthirsty?
Exactly this. It is my duty to “gift” my organs to a person in need but not the duty of the hospital or the surgeon to “gift” their services? And don’t say it’s because I don’t need them anymore. Maybe I have eleven little children who could use the money from the “purchase” of my organs - and yet that would be both unseemly and illegal. The ethics of this debate seem rather selective to me.
That’s hardly the same thing. In the first case, they have already performed a service that you agreed to pay for, and now you aren’t. If you agreed to pay a roofer for a new roof, then didn’t, he’d be trying to do the same thing to get his money. It’s not that they want the money, it’s that they are owed the money.
I love how people seem to be imaging these images of doctors not caring one bit about them because they might die, so they can grab up all their organs.
You really think this is a good idea? Putting organs up on eBay? Yeah, I’m sure they would all go to who needed them most.
“Sorry buddy, but I gots to have me a new car, take your $5000 and shove it up your ass!”
The free market is not the best solution for everything in the world, sorry to burst your bubble.
That’s actually pretty damn terrifying, in my eyes.
Do you know who the biggest donors would be? The poor. We’d *literally *have the rich living off of the poor. Much like it did during the industrial revolution, it would make financial sense for the poor to have lots of children- although this time it wouldn’t be because more children means more workers… no, this time it would be because more children means more organ donors.
I’m not sure i’d call it a power grab by the government, since that would imply the motivation for it arising from the government. This is more like the people giving away certain rights to the government (whether that’s foolish or always foolish is another question).
I’d say in this case the potential good of a carefully crafted opt-out system (to the extent it would have to be) would outweigh the bad.
You mean we’d have the rich giving tons of cash to the poor for their valuable organs? You’d rather the government take organs from the poor without compensation or their permission, but rich people giving them money and a choice is terrifying?
Just trying to get a handle on what you’re afraid of here. The price system works well for rationing every other good, why not organs? The poor are always screwed regardless. There’s no way you can make it not suck to be poor, but giving them an easy way to make lots of money quickly seems like it would help.
EDIT: Not to mention this would increase the organ supply by a vast amount. We are artificially creating a shortage of organs due to price controls. The poor need money and the sick need organs, not your morality.
More people end up dead because I won’t let them harvest my organs before I die. Ain’t I a stinker?
I should add to my previous post by noting that, if there are indeed cases where doctors are acting unethically, or downright criminally, in their effort to get organs, then this needs to be dealt with, whatever system of donation we have in place. There need to be clear ethical standards (there probably already are?) about how and when it is appropriate to go in and take organs.
It might also be worth noting that, if we had an opt-out system that dramatically increased the pool of potential donors, the incentive for unethical harvesting might decline due to increased supply. Does anyone have any figures for the current gap between demand and supply when it comes to human organs?
So you’re happy with children being born for the sole purpose of harvesting their organs?
Oh, and the poor would *not *be getting “tons of cash”. We’d see them being paid what the market will bear- and since there will be, as you say, a “vast amount” of new organs on the market, prices wouldn’t stay high for long.