The expression “save a life” means “prolong a life”, and every English speaker (except, apparently, you) understands that.
It is a bizarre debating style to claim that a word means something that it certainly does not mean in any dialect of the English language, and then assert stupefaction at how silly everyone is to believe something that they clearly do not believe. It’s transparently weak straw-manning.
Econ 101 is a good introduction to some basic principles of economics.
We are not going to see much movement on the demand side of the equation because people need these kidneys to live. We might see some movement on the supply side of the equation but we have outlawed the selling of organs in the public interest.
Organ trafficking can lead to some pretty perverse incentives.
I haven’t noticed a rash of organ theft in this country. Have you?
No, we’re a rich country. It’s poor Mexicans who are getting killed so rich Americans don’t have to wait on a list.
Would you say that we have the right to control our organs to the extent of donating even our organs that would be necessary for our survival? That is to say, suicide by donation?
Yes, Opt out, not* Opt in*.
We should have done that a decade ago.
The Perfect Master speaks (1998): Have guys awakened after a party to find their kidneys stolen? - The Straight Dope
More information on the black market organ trade.
Just the first few links off duck duck go.
These two posts, put next to each other, illustrate my point. When we say that we’re saving leftovers, it is perfectly understood – and often explicitly said – that we are saving them for later.
But when somebody is honored for “saving” somebody’s life, you NEVER hear it said, “Thank you for letting me die in some other fashion.” The vast majority of people talk as if they believed that saving somebody’s life makes that person immortal.
I am laughing, and I’m afraid it’s not with you. Maybe this “vast majority of people” are born-again Christians, and the saver is Jesus? But we all know that Keegan scores on the rebound, so even then it’s only temporary.
Yep.
Make it opt-out.
Make opting out piss-easy and reliable.
Guarantee that opting out will stay easy.
Sure, it’s ‘a matter of principle’ or ‘erosion of basic freedom’ or some such, but we compromise on stuff like that routinely every day. Principles should have a rationale to them - and the only one I can see at stake here is ‘If we allow this, then we will have to allow something else’, which is just slippery-slope nonsense.
Individuals may have reasons why they don’t/won’t/can’t donate their organs (fine, see opting out), but I don’t believe there is a sound argument to say that everyone must share a reason.
I agree that an opt-out system should be implemented.
What about the details of such a system? If somebody has opted in under the current system, I assume that next-of-kin cannot rescind the positively stated wish of the deceased. But what should happen under an opt-out system where the deceased has not opted out? Are next-of-kin just out of the decision-making process altogether under an opt-out system?
How would opt-out be implemented? It seems to me that there would have to be a reliable centralized database, and I’m not clear how that should work. I can imagine hospitals being justifiably paranoid about expensive litigation if they fail to identify an opt-out and proceed to harvest organs. It seems to me that it would require robust legislation to protect hospitals, with a clear burden upon the individual to ensure that their registration is accurate if they wish to opt out.
Many of the countries with opt-out systems already have such databases (either centralized or interfaced) available, as part of their UHC system. Whether the family can contradict the wishes of the deceased varies, like so many things, by country.
See post 31.
Yes, those both are needed, it has to be easy and it has to be reliable.
Well, then it seems like Mexico might need to legalize the sale of organs but it doesn’t seem like we have a problem with illegal organ sales in this country.
Yes. Whatever religious rights and freedom people have, once they’re dead they no longer have those rights.
No way ! I don’t want the government to have that kind of power over me ! What next making it mandatory for the government to take over ours houses when you’re dead and let a homeless person move in instead of leaving it to your family !!
Just an interesting story. About 15 or 20 years ago a young man died in a motorcycle accident. Brain dead. The hospital asked the parents if they could keep him alive on machines for a few days while they harvested the organs, Parents agreed. A month later the parents were billed a huge sum for the days their dead son was kept alive for the harvesting. ICU is expensive. Parents complained and hit a stone wall from the hospital. Parents then went to the press, Hospital apologized and said it was an “error”. What bull$h1t.
The whole premise of the thread is that there’s a shortage. Shortages exist because of price controls. Ipso facto, remove the price controls, remove the shortage.
Or we can just extort people with increasingly intrusive laws. The USSR lasted quite a long time with bread lines, I expect we can live just fine with organ waiting lists. Well, most of us.