We should move to a opt out model plus incentives. People should own their bodies and part of owning is being able to sell. Sure this could set up a systems where a poor man dies to set his family for life but considering the number of people who take dangerous jobs for the same purpose it doesn’t seem like a big deal instead of a risk for large amounts of cash they get a guarantee for larger amounts.
Or shortages exist because there’s just not enough of something in existence to meet demand.
Even countries with opt-out still don’t have enough organs for everyone who needs them. First, the deceased person’s organs have to be undamaged. Then they have to be matched to a potential recipient because organs aren’t really randomly interchangeable - you to match both for immune factors and size because even if the immune markers are compatible you can’t put the heart of a two year old toddler into a thirty year old adult or vice versa.
Making organ donation compulsory is NOT going to solve this shortage because it’s not due to price controls, it’s due to a lack of resource, that is, usable donor organs. Unless you propose we start killing one person to save another that’s not going to change. Or that we can somehow clone organs in a short time frame to use instead of naturally grown ones.
It will make donor organs more available, and that’s arguably a good thing, but let’s not have an illusion that this is really going to “solve” this problem.
That is so absurd. People are not being killed in México for their organs. I guess Americans will believe just about anything about my country. I wonder what makes them do so?
Wow. I think this is the first time I’ve ever agreed with Smapti about something.
No, no, no, and NO. The state does not own me, my body, or any piece thereof. Neither does society or humankind in general. While I live, my body is my own to do with as I will; while I live, all of me is mine, mine mine. When I don’t live anymore, well, it’s obviously not mine because there’s no me left to own anything – but it still doesn’t belong to the state, either. It doesn’t matter that I’m not there to claim my body or innards, those innards are NOT THEIR PROPERTY, period. And I would really rather keep it that way.
Those who prefer to pass their re-usable components to their fellow folk and the future should surely be thanked, commended, and handsomely compensated for their, ermmm, vital contribution to society. We all have the right to give of ourselves to others as we would and as much as we can; the right to do as one will with one’s own body extends to the parceling out of one’s parts post mortem. When the option to be harvested is an individual’s conscious choice, then getting a donor card or whatever becomes an honor - a recognition of that person’s generosity and a sort of thank-you note.
I’ve been an organ donor since I was 18 because I couldn’t sign up earlier, as you need to be a legal adult.
One of my classmates got killed by a truck driver who turned an S into a | when we were 15; his parents asked about donation straight after “oh my God!”, and indeed donated all that was donable.
In the high school we attended, signing up as an organ donor if you were medically able to became a part of the ritual of passage of turning 18 when we were in 9th grade. Now it’s not necessary (the system is currently set as opt-out), but still people do it because that way their will is made clear and evident.
All that had never anything to do with money. It had to do with another one of my year-mates having known he’d eventually need a kidney transplant since we were in preschool.
May those of you who would never donate, never find yourselves or someone you love in need of a tranplant.
I have no beef with anyone who chooses to be an organ donor.
My only problem is with those who want to force that choice on others.
Would you choose to be an organ recipient?
Would you choose to have your leg broken? What the hell kind of statement is “choose to be an organ donor?” No one (at least no one sane) chooses to have that level of illness that would require one. Do people choose to have Alzheimer’s? Do people choose to have end stage renal disease? Seriously, doesn’t anyone ever think when they blurt out that phrase?
If I have a choice I choose not to be that ill in the first place!
But the state already has a certain amount of control over your body, both alive and dead. No matter how insistent you are that your body is your “property” and only you have a say in what happens to it, you do realize that you cannot choose to leave your rotting corpse on your front lawn, right? Why are you okay with the state being allowed to make that decision about your body?
Do you believe that we should make ambulance services opt-in only? Only people who have taken the time to sign and carry a card in their wallet declaring themselves willing to receive medical care can be taken to hospital in an ambulance, I suppose. I mean, if you have a stroke and collapse unconscious on the street, the state would be overstepping their rights to do anything about it, right? I mean, it’s YOUR body! Yours!
This mindset just doesn’t make sense to me. The opt-out model in no way removes your ability to declare your body yours to do with as you will. If you don’t want your body used in that way, you choose to not have it used in that way.
However,
No. Nobody is suggesting that we pick and choose donor recipients. The suggestion was that either one chooses to be a participant in the program, or one chooses to not be a participant in the program. Anyone who wants to have a donated organ can choose to be a participant.
Some clarification on the Finnish law that started this thread. The law states that the potential donor is assumed to allow it unless he/she has made statements against donation during their lifetime. Doctors are required to interview family about a potential donors views in cases where they haven’t signed a donor card. Unless that family member is a legal guardian, only the donors own views on donation are valid. The fastest way to consent to organ donation is still carrying your donor card with you.
http://stm.fi/en/article/-/asset_publisher/presumed-consent-to-be-followed-for-organ-transplants
Except we DO pick and choose - we just use different criteria than “are you willing to be a donor?” or “are you of European or African descent?”. We use criteria like “can you afford to pay for the surgery and aftercare?” in the US. Other places use “Are you under a certain age?” or something else.
This idea is always brought up in these discussions, but it’s impractical for a lot of reasons, especially the fact that there are many people who may need an organ transplant whose organs are not suitable for transplantation into others. A cancer survivor, for example, shouldn’t be barred from receiving a kidney transplant simply because his cancer history makes him ineligible to be a donor of any organs.
There’s a difference between being unable to donate, and “opting out” of a donor program. The example you give should not be penalized. A guy who says, “Fuck, no, my kidneys get buried with me” could – according to some people’s ethical beliefs – be denied a kidney if he needs one.
(I don’t agree with this ethical formula.)
(I’m personally unable to donate blood – although, over time, I did donate 13 gallons. I’m also on the bone marrow donation registry…but am probably unable to donate there, either, for medical reasons. Sigh…)
Yes.
You’re conflating ‘choice’ and ‘outcome of choice’ here.
I don’t want to force anyone to donate their organs. I just want to apply the very gentlest of possible pressure for them to make a choice. It’s not the same thing.
A change in the understanding of the default answer to a yes or no choice is not the same as forcing people to say ‘yes’.
More organs are needed, but they are not much use without transplant teams and matching haplotypes. If you die at a ripe old age, many of your organs are worn and possibly damaged.
Ethically, I don’t think you can force people to donate. I signed my card. I like the opt out idea, but it might work better in homogenous Finland than Canada. We don’t have enough transplant surgeons. People might get upset that grandma’s kidney is being harvested and recalls a Monty Python sketch.
You should be allowed to opt out, but if you’re status is “opted out” at the time that you require an organ, you are at the very bottom of the list.
Well said. I don’t understand how anyone is viewing the opt-out suggestion as being forced donation, and would love if that perspective could be clarified by one of the “The state doesn’t own my body” proponents.
Really. If you die leaving no will/etc., your property (generally) goes to Next of Kin or gets liquidated by the state. That’s what’s done to property. We don’t burn it all down.
Of course if you think of your organs as different you can always opt out. But I do like the poetry of putting such people at the bottom of a donations list if they choose to opt out (hell, those who currently opt-in should be at the top IMO). Even at the bottom, the opt-outers would probably have higher chance of receiving an organ under such a system.
Exactly. All we are saying is that you must make a choice and if you dont the People will decide for you. Which is what happens to your estate if you dont have a Will or trust.