That’s a little different than the people saying that non-donors should be left to die if they need a transplant.
nm
Yes, it’s different. Neither DrDeth nor I have asserted that non-donors should be left to die. Our point is that you should make a choice - but just that the action/inaction tables are turned.
At the moment, the outcome of being too lazy to care one way or the other about organ donation is the same as the outcome of being opposed to it.
We are proposing only that the outcome of being too lazy to care one way or the other be aligned with the same outcome as wishing to be a donor.
People opposed to it can keep their same outcome by simply opting out. (Which actually is more consistent with what they want anyway).
I heard somewhere that in the state of Washington you have to opt "OUT"of being an organ donor as opposed to most other states where you have to opt “IN”
That doesn’t appear to be true - http://www.dol.wa.gov/driverslicense/organdonor.html
To me, it’s not that opt-out = forced donation, it’s that the default position is organ donation. If something goes wrong and my opt-out is somehow not acknowledged, my organs will be taken against my wishes.
and just why do you want your organs to rot and feed worms rather than being put to good use?
I did make that assertion, sort of. I don’t actually want someone in need to be denied an organ, but I do have a hard time understanding the rationale of someone who wouldn’t want to donate, but would want to receive.
Well, yes. I dont them them denied, but I do demand a decent explanation.
Because they’re mine and just because organ donation is an option doesn’t mean it has to happen, and not with my parts. And I don’t want the angels to have to look all over the place to find my particles. 
That said, I do donate blood.
Not after death.
and “they’re mine” seems pretty selfish.
Angels, are you serious? I see the smily there, but after you are reduced to worm poo, the angels will have a pretty tough time getting you back together no matter where you parts started.
Certainly that’s a risk - and it’s the reason why I proposed:
[ul]
[li]Make it opt-out.[/li][li]Make opting out piss-easy and reliable.[/li][li]Guarantee that opting out will stay easy.[/li][/ul]
Nothing is ever 100% reliable - I mean, even under the existing opt-in system, there could be a mixup that results in you being mistaken for a consenting donor, but we manage to attain acceptable reliability on this and a vast range of important things, so I see no reason why we couldn’t do that with an opt-out system.
Me too, but I think enforcing the denial of organs to people unwilling to donate would just be a dick move - not appropriate for healthcare provision. Two stupids don’t make a smart.
People should have access to available healthcare according to their need - they should not have to qualify. Even in other cases such as where their health problem is the direct result of self-destructive activity such as smoking, drugs, or hamburgers - denial of care at the point of delivery is not the right way to deal with any of these problems (IMO).
In general I agree.
But organs are a special case. It’s not just a question of additional expenditure. It is often quite literally a choice that you can either give life to one person or another.
Sure - people can’t have access to things that aren’t available - and medical professionals must make judgments on the allocation of scarce resources - this already happens with organ transplants at the moment. I wouldn’t propose to change any of that - except that the opt-out scheme should increase availability.
But the question of whether a person is a willing donor is (or should be) entirely irrelevant to the judgment of their suitability as a recipient. Medical professionals should not have to care about that factor.
? But my point is, when you have an absolutely limited resource, and you have to choose who should get that benefit, that’s a qualitatively different situation from just asking whether we should (say) spend extra money on caring for someone who doesn’t look after themselves.
When there are two people you could save with an available organ, I can see a reasonable argument for always prioritizing a willing donor over a non-donor. Which could mean that non-donors pretty much never receive an organ.
I know you don’t agree, but it is a qualitatively different situation from the broader notion that in general we should give people the care that they need, not what they have earnt.
I’m in the opt-out camp as well. But I don’t necessarily think it should be made ridiculously easy. If an adult person is seriously committed to having their organs remain with their body at burial/cremation, then they should have to seriously commit to going through the process of opting OUT of the donation process.
In the case of minors (under 15), I do believe the parents should have the final say, but I would hope that as the donation idea becomes more accepted, then more parents would see donation of organs as the default option and refusal to donate the aberration.
How often does the circumstance arise that a who person needs an organ is still capable of giving one? Most of the illnesses that require a transplant happen at an older age where the organs are suboptimal at best, or are of such a nature that disqualifies that person from donating. At that point, you’re not making a decision based on a sound triage - you’re punishing people for their moral choices earlier in life.
I’m not a donor because I’m aware that medical professionals don’t always dot all their I’s and cross all their T’s before declaring someone dead, and I worry that as a donor there might be an extra impetus to decide that I’m dead so I can be cut up and parceled out when in fact I might still be savable. It may sound farfetched or paranoid, but there are examples of it happening in the real world and it’s not a gamble I’m willing to take.
Yes, it is based on earlier moral choices. But it is not punishment. I’m not suggesting that if an extra organ is available, we should withhold it out of spite. It is the criterion for choice in a situation where, whatever choice you make, one person will live and one person will die.
And in that circumstance, whether or not the recipient would have been willing to donate an organ when they were young and healthy is irrelevant to the good that that organ do them today. Between a donor and a non-donor, the donor isn’t going to live longer because they put a little pink sticker on their driver’s license.