In some countries, Finland is one of them, organs are harvested automatically and no permission is required. This law saves thousands upon thousands of lives while in countries such as the US and UK many thousands die or suffer each year for want of organs.
Who needs organs after they are dead? Is it really better to let healthy organs rot or be burned because relatives won’t give consent or the deceased didn’t like the idea of passing on their organs after death?
I believe many countries have a system in which everyone is assumed to be an organ donor unless they specifically opt out. Even that is better than the present state of affairs.
No… It would violate the religious beliefs of too many people.
Let’s go for the compromise: organ donation is the default, and if you want to opt out, you carry a little card or other indentifying token, in which case you get to be buried with your corneas and kidneys intact.
I don’t understand this thing about religious beliefs. Do any of the major religions demand that you be buried or cremated with your organs intact as a prequisite for entering heaven or whatever?
A better solution would be to pay the donor for organs a set price. The doctor makes money doing the surgery, the hospital makes money. The only people who don’t make money are the people who have the one required product, the organ. They’re suppose to give it out of the goodness of their heart. How about the Doctor donate his services out of the goodness of their heart? Same with the hospital. And maybe it would be nice if some poor people who have nothing to leave their family when they die, could use their organs help them out. Will it drive up the cost? Some, but paying $10,000 to the donors family for a kidney is a very small percentage of the total cost.
Absolutely not. My organs are my property. Not yours, not the state’s, not the medical industry’s.
If I want to donate them that’s my choice. If you want to donate yours, that’s your choice. You have no right to compel me or threaten to withhold medical care from me.
The book Nudge had an article about it, citing many real-life large scale studies. They said that the best way is neither opt-in nor opt-out systems. The best way, in terms of maximum donations AND maximum acceptance with the public, is a a system that makes it both easy and mandatory to list one’s choice. For instance, make it mandatory to list one’s choice while renewing a drivers license.
But it helps a lot of the power of social pressure is used to nudge people to make the decision that benefits society the most. That can be done by telling people making the choice that most people filling out this form choose to donate. (Only if that is true, obviously, and in this system, it was true).
My organs are my property and it’s my choice. But I can’t choose to donate them only to people who are also willing to donate them even though they’re my property and it’s my choice. Right?
I can’t speak for all religions, but if I recall the Shinto and Romani traditions do not favor organ donation. There is debate among other religions as to whether or not the current criteria used to determine donor death are the proper ones (I think some Jewish groups have an issue with using a brain-dead but still beating-heart donor, for example). Christian Scientists aren’t strictly speaking, forbidden by their religion from donating or using donations but given they strongly favor/advocate prayer over modern medicine in practice they usually don’t participate in this. Jehovah’s Witnesses prohibit donating or receiving organs unless all blood (and they do mean all) can be drained from the organ in question and no blood is needed during the operation - which is pretty much impossible for most purposes. Cornea transplants might meet their criteria but not much else.
The Hmong regard burying the entire body of the deceased to be critically important a form of respect, aid in reincarnation, and happiness of the soul in the afterlife (presumably until rebirth) so carving out an organ and giving it to someone else is, needless to say, problematic in their culture. We’re talking about people who have long preserved the afterbirth and umbilical cord of a baby in hopes of being able to bury it with the original owner decades later, which is a much more demanding notion of “complete” than most westerners have. They also believe that an alteration made in the body in this life can carry over into the next life - so surgical sterilization now means the next incarnation will also be sterile. Now, go ahead and ask someone with a belief like that to donate their liver or that of a loved one - oh, and by the way, in their belief system the liver occupies the same headspace as the heart does in ours, being the seat of emotion and feeling. Basically, you’d be condemning them to a horrible, possibly fatal, birth defect in their next life. You’re probably not going to get anything near a positive response to a request like that.
Sure, the Hmong are a small minority in the US - about 250,000 - but there are a LOT of “minor” religions both in the US and the world so their members add up to millions. And that’s the problem with only talking about/considering the rules of the “major” religions - not everyone belongs to a major religion.
In addition to Broomstick’s excellent answer, some Christian groups – not formal denominations, but just church groups – hold that you will need all of your parts in order to appear whole in heaven.
This is seen in some Catholic iconography, where Saint Sebastian, for instance, bears his many arrow-wounds even in heaven. Saint Agatha is sometimes depicted as carrying her severed breasts on a platter. And Jesus himself bore/bears the stigmata of the crucifixion.
Some people believe that certain kinds of bodily mutilations will persist into heaven. Others hold that we are given “perfect” bodies in heaven. There is no consensus.
That was going to be my suggestion. I think the biggest problem with lack of necessary organs is not because that many people actively don’t want to donate but rather because it is an opt-in thing.
As a side note to this - there have been instances of hospitals providing a person with a (preserved) amputated body part so the amputee can later be buried with it. In some instances the person finds being presented with the ashes of a cremated part to be acceptable, in other cases you’re looking at a piece of a person sealed in a jar of something like formalin. Most of these patients have been Christians.
So it’s not just organ donation that brought up this sort of belief.
Do you have a cite that this law has saved thousands of lives? Do you have a cite demonstrating that Finland has a higher rate of viable organs harvested for transplant than the United States?
I am against mandatory organ donation partly because the government has wormed its tentacles into enough parts of our lives as it is. We don’t need any more paternalistic laws.
I’m also against it because of this stupifyingly wide-spread myth that it “saves” lives. There is no such thing as “saving” lives, under any circumstances whatsoever. It is often possible to prolong lives, but that’s all that’s possible. When you “save” somebody’s life, you’re not saving it at all – the ONLY thing that you’re doing is making sure that they will die at some other time, probably in some other fashion.
If your concern is the number of people whose lives could be prolonged by an organ transplant, the only efficient thing, and the only thing that will actually solve the situation, is to repeal the idiotic laws that prohibit payment for organ donations.
I support the idea in theory, but I recognize that it’s very unlikely to happen. Even opt-out policies will be an uphill battle.
I’m not sure this is correct, that your body is property. But the view of organs as property actually solves a lot of the issues. Eminent domain is a well-established legal concept.