The problem I have with it is a civil rights issue. It implies that the government owns the bodies of its citizens.
If one does not own ones own body, what does one own?
We own nothing once we are dead.
If we die intestate, our possessions are dealt with according to set legal proceedings. We can choose to ‘opt-out’ of these by writing a will. Would an opt-out organ donation system not be comparable?
Interesting.
However, Spain is (I think, not an expert on Spain) a much more genetically homogenous country than the United States. As a general rule, organ donation is easier within a particular ethnic group, or closely related groups, because of the higher chance of common genes. In a country like the USA or even more so Brazil, where there is a lot of genetic mixing of types from all over the world the problems of matching organs to recipients can become much more difficult.
Also, while that might work for doubled organs like kidneys, would it hold true for all organs?
By John Mace:
I agree 100%
By abbie carmichael:
Call me selfish but here’s my reason:
Unless I can specify which organs I’m willing to donate and under what circumstances, I’m not gonna gonna do it.
I’ll be damned if I try to do something good with my body and just end up providing skin to some lady who’s getting a third facelift by a doctor who’s lining his pockets with my good nature.
That’s another reason, besides religious (which I am not) that an opt-out system would be bad. Corruption would run rampant.
I guess I could just be cynical.
Do they really harvest the organs of dead people? Perhaps I’ve been mislead by too many hospital movies and shows, but I’ve been given the impression that organs are most often taken from people who are brain-dead, not dead-dead because the organs aren’t useful very long outside a living body. Maybe it’s only a preference?
If this is really the case that they at least perfer to take organs from people who are still techically alive, I can see how there could be objections to this. To a doctor he might be saving someone else’s life, but to a distraught loved one in denial about the patient’s irreversable condition, removing the organs while the person is still “alive” probably looks a lot like murder, even though the patient has no hope of getting better.
Then of course, this would also lead to a slew of novels about ruthless doctors declairing people brain-dead, for revenge on the victims or money, when they’re not…
Contradicted by evidence from fully functioning opt-outs in Europe. Doctors should obviously never stand to make any financial gain from procuring organs - and in any case I think you massively underestimate their professional behaviour.
"There are two basic types of donation: organ donation and tissue donation.
Organs that can be donated are the heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, pancreas,
and small intestine. These can be taken only while the heart is still
beating, when the donor is ‘brain-dead.’ …
Tissues (skin, bone, corneas and heart valves) can be recovered up to 24
hours after the heart has stopped beating."
http://www.transweb.org/qa/asktw/answers/answers9505/Harvesting.html
But I suspect that it’s possible to keep many more patients on ventilation after brain-death than we would guess.
GorillaMan ,
I really didn’t mean it to look like I was questioning the integrity of doctors at all. Perhaps I should’ve worded it differently.
I would think that they have little to do with the actual obtaining of organs in the first place.
I wouldn’t take issue with a burn victim getting my skin but it’s unclear to me how organs and tissue are distributed.
The opt-out thing just seems creepy because by default my body shouldn’t be treated like a stolen car at a chopshop.
Probably a good long meditation on just how astonishing and exhilarating the idea of organ donation is would change a good many minds on not wanting their bodies treated like “stolen cars”. (I know you were only kidding!)
But, you know. What could be a more beautiful tribute to the deceased? Not to be cremated and sent curling skyward in a pattern of smoke and ash, or buried in a custom-built mausoleum for future generations to admire (neither of which is in itself bad, or denied the donor)… but… to actually have someone take hold of your very physical substance, and use it to give life to others? This is an opportunity and a privilege of cosmic proportions, and it’s real, and it’s happening right now. Heck, I’ll be disappointed if I don’t get used for spare parts!
I dunno, I want my relatives to drink me
Seriously, take the money and use it for educational purposes. It would be better to let people make up their minds positively than to coerce them into it and gain their distrust and ill temper.
I’ve never understood what’s so wrong about paying organ donors for their organs. There’s high demand for a product that is in low supply. Higher prices fixes the problem.
Doctors get paid for performing the organ transplant. Hospitals get paid for their services and for procuring the organ. Everyone gets paid except the person who supplied the vital part. It doesn’t seem right to me.
I was halfway through rattling off a response to the paying-for-organs proposal when I realised that I really couldn’t muster much of an argument against it. “Distasteful” is probably the closest I can get, and that ain’t much.
I daresay it might bring up issues like the poor always being the donors, and the rich always being the recipients. Which turns the poorer sectors of society into a kind of spare parts bank. But still, plenty of people objectify the poor anyway.
Hmmm. I think perhaps it should be considered. I am surprised to hear myself say so.
I’m all for it. Yes, there will be objections on religious grounds but, um, isn’t that where the ‘opt out’ part comes in? I think many people who don’t fill out their cards or whatever aren’t against donating but are just lazy.
With default-donation, everybody wins (any possible corruption aside, though I think that may be a little paranoid. Are there actual cases, TV crime shows aside, in which a patient was allowed to die for his/her organs?). If you don’t want to give your organs up, for whatever selfish reasons, you have to make the effort to have your name removed. Jehovah’s Witnesses can deregister in hordes with, most probably, the click of a button.
And yes, I do think most of the reasons people give not to donate are selfish. ‘Waah, what if my liver goes to some drunk millionaire?’ Well, what if it doesn’t? And even if it did, YOU ARE DEAD. You are the dog in the manger, sitting on a bed of straw you absolutely no use for, still refusing to let the horses have any. Wouldn’t it be nice waiting for a heart transplant, finding out that some people have refused to donate theirs AFTER THEY HAVE DIED (a time when the heart has, one would assume, ceased to be of any use to its owner) because they think it’s plain creepy or just can’t bear the thought of not being buried ‘whole’ (and I hope anyone who objects to removing of organs on religious grounds, believing this will prevent ascension to the afterlife, never has a loved one in a plane crash or eaten by a bear)? etc. etc.
Don’t forget the liver. They can take part of a living one and transplant it into an ailing person, and they both grow full-sized livers.
Many people here seem to think that there is no legitimate reason for not donating one’s organs. That’s because many of us, including me, have religious beliefs (or lack thereof) that bias us towards not seeing a downside. But here are some hypothetical scenarios that might give us an idea of why someone might object. Let’s say that sometime in the future, the organ donation issue is moot due to technological advances. But in this future, there are far more doctors-in-training than there are cadavers for them to dissect. So to solve the problem, everyone by default is soaked in formalin upon death and given to anatomy labs nationwide.
Another future hypothetical situation: Organ donations are obsolete as above, but food shortages are rampant due to extreme longevity and overpopulation. Someone comes up with a way to safely recycle human remains as food. All dead bodies are diverted into this recycling program by default.
Certainly there must be some of you organ donors who would be repulsed at the thought of being eaten after you are dead, or being cut up and made fun of by smart alecks in an anatomy lab.
Even if these things are okay with you, I think that most of us can visualize a way that we would not want our bodies treated after we die.
If a person dies without an organ donor card or written instructions concerning what they want done with the body, it is up to the person’s family to decide what to do with the body. Why is that? It’s because we each own our own bodies, and when we die, all our possessions are passed to our heirs.
If our organs are donated by default as suggested by the OP, then that implies that our possessions are no longer given by default to our next of kin or designated heir, and thus our bodies are no longer our own, and we can fully expect to see Soylent Green in the supermarkets someday 
.
I don’t see how the ability to “opt out” negates this argument either. Considering how many people die without a will, I think it’s very likely for a person to die without getting around to opting out, even though that is what they intended to do. You shouldn’t have to fill out a card or click on a website to claim your human rights.
The solution comes down to economics, or how to best confront unlimited demand with a limited supply. I have to bring it up again: Money for organs, anyone? Think of how much more incentive there would be to fill out a donor card if you got $500 for it (or even $50). Hospitals could solve shortages by bumping up their offer price. I don’t see any losers, and I foresee the organ shortage completely going away while upholding the rights and dignity we all expect when we die.
Mmmm…Soylent Green…
The donor designation on your driver’s license is not enough to get them to harvest your organs. It must be approved by a family member. I think this is wrong and we should work toward changing it. The surviving family members should have no right to go against what you want to do with your own body.
I’m for the “assumed donor” status. If you’re against it, you should say so. There are so many things the body is used for after you die. I read somewhere (no cite…sorry) that up to eight people can benefit from one body.
I agree. I should hope that my family (and I think they do–maybe it’s time for a little chat!) respects my decision that when I’m no longer viable or dead I want to donate my organs, tissue or whatever is needed to:
(a) save a dying person, rich or poor, good or bad (it’s about life & death, people; not the perceived value of that life!);
(b) enhance the quality of life for someone whose physical problems could be corrected by my organic material, which is no longer of use to me, i.e., my corneas to a blind person, my skin to a burn victim or even some poor schmoe who’d be happier (and maybe a more productive member of society) looking 20 years younger (after all, will it really make my family happier if the tissue just rots in a box or is burnt to ashes?); or
(c) facilitate the advancement of medicine via education of medical students (sure, even a little creepy to me, but worthy nonetheless) or to studies that might find cures for diseases that could benefit many generations to come (what a legacy to leave, huh?); or
(d) facilitate the advancement of any other science such as forensic science (yes, even creepier, but just as worthy), i.e., someone’s corpse was responsible for helping scientists understand the clues left behind on victims of murder leading to more effective criminal investigation.
While I have to admit there are some areas in which I don’t believe things should be done solely for the good of the many at the expense of an individual, I just can’t rationalize why keeping it to yourself in death is valued so much more highly than life itself and quality of life for those who are still around. It really just seems damn selfish to me.
I’ll bet it’s even more if you look at the various areas human organic material can be used (yes, that’s all our bodies amount to after death; and if you don’t believe that, have a look at the Body Farm). Thing is some people are so paranoid about uses of ‘their’ organic material that would offend them in life that they won’t even consider taking a chance that they could change the world, even a very small part, for the better by giving up what they clearly don’t need anymore. Even from a religious point-of-view, I can’t understand what the usefulness is of the organic material in the afterlife? Maybe someone could ellucidate, but isn’t the body a mere vessel for the soul? Does your soul really get buried with its vessel?
If you value the positive affect of your life on your familiy and all those who come in contact with you life, why can’t you value the tremendous positive affect you could have on those you don’t even know in death? Doesn’t that give your life that much more meaning?
On the flip side, take a look at the Texas convict (convicted and executed for the murder of one man in a botched robbery) who selflessly donated his body to science saying that he wanted some good to come out of his death as his life went so wrong. Those wacky scientists chopped him up, took a bazillion pictures of every single part of his body and created the Visible Human in order to better understand the human body for the advancement of many areas of medicine which is already happening. This one guy, whom Texas saw as such a huge threat to society, may save thousands of people in the future. Can’t everyone be as selfless in death as a convicted murderer?
On a side note (in case anyone brings up any controversy over opt-out plans in general), I don’t even agree that opt-out plans work in all areas of life (I would obviously prefer to ‘opt-in’ for advertising), but in this case, I’m certain the benefits tremendously outweigh the detriments.
Nutshell: I’m for it! Don’t like it? Say so!
I’m pretty sure the problem arises when the individual expects to be resurrected physically in the original body, say at Christ’s return, and if anything’s missing, well, you’re not getting a new one. Personally I believe He’s coming back, I just don’t think he’ll be bothered that I mislaid my liver - nonetheless I can see how there could be a real problem, if one couldn’t get past the issue.
I think organ transplants are totally amazing and brilliant. Did I mention that? Oh, I did…
I appreciate the insight, but I’m still a bit confused.
Which begs the question, if you aren’t resurrected before your body completely goes to dust, then how would you get everything back anyway? And, as someone else mentioned, what if your dumb luck was that you weren’t buried with all your parts to begin with due to the manner in which you died?
Further, what about the poor schmoe who is missing parts because his went defective & was removed to save his life some time back? Is he just SOL too because the organ that was replaced is not necessarily the one he was born with? Goodness gracious, sounds like a Shelley nightmare.
*Whoa, there fellah! That’s not your liver! You’re going to have to turn that in.
What’s that, Mr. Schmoe? You say you gave your liver away? Are you insane?! Do you really think I’m gonna give you another one just because you thought someone else might need yours?
And you, Mr. F. Monster, I just can’t for the life of me figure out what to do about you!
Alright, that does it! Who’s the fool who had the gall to think my creations were Bionicles?*
I’m amused and glad that you can see past the idea that you lose brownie points if your liver goes AWOL. I would also think the supreme being who’s deciding the resurrection-worthy from the rot-in-hell-worthy would give you extra brownie points if your AWOL organ happened to be in the body of someone who was *really, really * resurrection-worthy!
I am drawn back to this thread for reasons I can not describe.
Making the argument that someone, “doesn’t need their body when they are dead” is somewhat akin to saying, “if someone dies, they died, so what, get over it” which begs the argument, why are you worried about saving them.
Because someone “doesn’t need their body when they are dead,” should we do away with all the corpses? Maybe use them for fire practice and sexual perversions? Throw them into mass graves? Grind them up into hotdog meat?
I’m just curious where you are going with this argument.