In other words, harvest people who aren’t paying attention regardless of what their actual wishes might be.
Yes, and since those “actual wishes” are based upon rational thought, too bad for them.
The other thing could be if you dont have “donor” on your card, then you dont get to receive any organs yourself.
So you don’t want organ donation at all, then. You want organ extortion.
Why not just declare that our organs are property of the state and can be seized as necessary to serve the greater good, if that’s the route you want to go down?
Why support irrational behavior?
All you gotta do is opt out. That’s your right.
But since opting out is not rational, why make it default?
Are you some sort of religious nut that thinks you cant be reborn if they harvest your kidneys? 
what rational reason is there for NOT being a donor?
In other words(something you like to do so often it makes heads spin), you want to take from the system, but refuse to contribute to it even if you are dead?
I don’t want a doctor who’s willing to “redefine harm” to decide that it’s not worth it to save my life because my organs could go to someone more “deserving”.
Yes.
:dubious:
My hat is off to you, sir. I thought that “you cant be reborn if they harvest your kidneys” is the most irrational reason for not being an organ donor. I wuz wrong.
No, it’s a simple matter of principle. If you believe that organ donation is a useful and valuable procedure, and that it benefits society as a whole, then you can make your own organs available, and in return you will get access to available organs if and when you need them.
Someone who does not want to donate their organs might have perfectly good reasons for making that decision. Their reasons might be religious; they might be personal and moral; they might be pragmatic. But if you have those reasons, then i believe that it’s reasonable for society to ask you to be consistent in your reasoning. If you have objections to the system of organ donation when you are the donor, you should be willing to forego your privileges as a recipient.
I should add, by the way, that my system would not automatically preclude non-donors from receiving organs. It would simply give donors priority over non-donors.
I’m surprised that you’re not on board with this, to be honest, given your totalitarian leanings in so many areas of public policy.
I believe that organ donation is just that. A donation. An act of charity made without expectation of return. It’s no longer an act of charity when your life is being held hostage on contingency of your compliance.
Moreover, it’s not even a good system. It’s a stopgap that exists because politicians and religious fundamentalists have been standing in the way of organ cloning research for anti-scientific reasons, and it does not serve the needs of the majority of people who need organs. We could have abolished this system 25 years ago if the public was willing to look at the matter rationally.
There is no inconsistency in being unwilling to risk my life at the hands of unscrupulous for-profit medical corporations, and being willing to accept the charity of others.
I don’t believe that anyone is inherently more deserving of life than any other person.
I don’t think its an epidemic but there are benefits to a doctor that performs transplants and harvests organs for transport to other places. I don’t think it would be good for participation in organ donation if we allowed this.
So, its part of their estate? Their heirs get the money? I suppose that wouldn’t create any more of an incentive to murder your relatives than already exists but ISTM that we should regulate this pretty closely if we do it.
Transplant surgeons might not have an incentive to convince people to die quickly, but people who are paying for treatments certainly do. I have no idea how much money insurance companies spend on ALS and the like, but I’d be willing to bet it’s a lot.
A lot of people donate organs while they’re still alive. And perhaps people could earn an annuity or something from hospitals in return for a promise to donate their organs upon death, like a reverse mortgage. Or yeah, money for your heirs, what’s wrong with that?
The point is, you’ll get a lot more organs if you pay for them like the valuable goods they are. Banning their sale is exactly like a price floor, it creates huge shortages. And black markets, which aren’t exactly hotbeds of ethical behavior.
So which would you prefer? People making a few bucks while making their own decisions, and yeah, maybe there’s a few ethical quandaries that come up we’ll have to deal with? Or people dying on organ waiting lists and cartels getting paid to harvest organs from murder victims instead?
This is covered by an advance directive.
If it makes you feel better, i’ll change the name. It’s not organ donation; it’s now an organ collective, a sort of medical kibbutz, and if you want to reap the harvest, you have to be prepared to help sow the crops. You are perfectly welcome not to be a part of the collective. You’re not being held hostage; you have an opportunity to make a decision about your involvement well before there is any likelihood of you either needing an organ or being in a position to provide one.
My collective will even be generous enough to offer organs to non-members, as long as all needy members have been taken care of first. We’re not monsters. 
For the sake of this particular discussion, assume that i agree with everything you’ve written in this paragraph. I have no problem with improving the medical technology and taking advantage of developments like cloning. If we could fix people’s organs without needing transplants, i’d be very happy. But the problems of the current system still exist, so we still need to address them. Simply whining about what hasn’t happened doesn’t change that fact.
But if your assessment of the system is correct, then those people who are charitably providing their organs have also risked their life at the hands of unscrupulous for-profit medical corporations.
Why are you unwilling to risk becoming the victim of an allegedly corrupt system, but happy for others to take that same risk for your personal benefit? Surely the most principled thing to do would be to refuse the organ, because of its provenance in an immoral system that takes advantage of the generosity of donors.
For the same reason that I’m not a fireman, soldier, or cop, but am still willing to accept their aid and protection.
But one of your central points about organ donations is that it is exactly that: a donation, a form of charity.
This isn’t the case with firemen and police and soldiers. They are paid professionals, and the money that pays their wages and sustains their services is contributed by taxpayers. Society pays into the system, and members of society get to benefit from it. Sure, some people don’t pay certain taxes because they earn too little, but everyone contributes to the tax base that sustains public services.
And you’ve dodged the central part of the question. Presumably, you don’t believe that the fire and police and military services are essentially corrupt organizations that take cavalier risks with other people’s lives for the sake of making money. But you do believe that about the medical profession and organ donation.
So again, Why are you angry enough about that system that you are not willing to contribute your own organs, but not quite so angry that you’re happy for other people to take those same risks on your behalf?
You said a few posts back that you “don’t believe that anyone is inherently more deserving of life than any other person.” But you apparently do believe that, because you want people to take risks for you that you’re not willing to take for them.
It’s also worth nothing that some of your concerns about the financial corruption in the medical profession would actually be addressed and significantly alleviated if organ donation were much more widespread. If there is any incentive for the medical profession to be too aggressive in harvesting organs, it is partly because so many people die without making their organs available. Increase the number of donors, and the potential for shortage-induced problems declines.
This.
Would love it if my donation not only means possible life for others, but also less of a financial burden for my immediate family. It shouldn’t just be doctors and hospitals who profit (because they do profit). In fact this could be a big incentive for people to hop on board the program.
How close are we to being able to clone organs for people? I imagine once that happens there ill be no need for this at all, right?
I can say dialysis costs $22k per session. That’s $66k per week to keep my sorry ass alive. Almost a million has been spent since I started. A transplant would have been cheaper.
I am wholly against paid for donations. As it is, if you can afford to be listed in multiple segments of the states, it’s pretty much a guarantee you will get an organ before someone without frequent flier miles. If I could afford to be listed in the SW states (where there are more people with my particular blood type) I would. But that’s not financially feasible. Currently, the way organs are parceled out is as fair as it can be. People still manage to game the system.
I, too, would prefer an opt out system overall. I am biased, of course.
Well, here’s something i didn’t know.
You’re saying that it costs money to have your name on different lists? And the cost is not some minor administrative fee like $50, but is high enough that some like you, who needs an organ, actually has to forego being on some lists because you can’t afford it?
That is possibly the most fucked-up thing i’ve read in this thread.