Should organ donor ship be assumed?

[Cinnamon_Girl]

@Zagadka

I am drawn back to this thread for reasons I can not describe.

May I suggest that you have come to the conclusion that we may be able to educate, right here at SDMB, non-organ donors on the value of their organs to those who could get something of value out of them?

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.

It’s true, I agree that if someone dies, they died (stands to reason). But I’m not saying “so what, get over it.” I don’t believe that donating organs is (a) saying so what (quite the contrary, it’s like saying, “so what else?”) and (b) saying “get over it” because donating organs is not the sole way one grieves over the death of a loved one, although it can certainly be a source of comfort to know that they “live on through someone else.”

I’m not sure what you mean, though, by “why are you worried about saving them?” I don’t *think * you meant saving the organs, because we already know why saving the organs is important. Did I miss something? If you did indeed mean saving the person then I don’t understand why you think that saving someone’s life via organ transplant wouldn’t be preferred as to letting them die unnecessarily? Could they not possibly contribute something positive to someone by continuing their life? Even if they didn’t, it’s life itself that is valuable, is it not? (Which strikes me as an ironic statement considering I’m also contributing my opinion to an assisted suicide thread as well.)

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.

Hmmm, do away with corpses… My thoughts immediately rested upon the thousands of acres of land dedicated to internment of corpses while breathing human beings are piled on top of one another in huge housing establishments. Never mind. Why should we use corpses for fire practice or sexual perversions when we actually do have quite reasonable uses for corpses already? You might even find actual accounts of a couple in my original response. Mass graves? Actually, barring other more useful solutions, my thought is that cremation is more environmentally-friendly. Hotdog meat? Well, considering hotdog meat is already pretty gross as it is, I don’t think you could do much more damage. But then I don’t think I’d really be all that interested, myself.

And the magical question, where am I going with this argument? At this point, my head is swarming and I see dead people, so I can’t quite remember.

Oh yeah, sign up to donate your damn organs already. You really, really, really won’t need them when you’re dead! I promise!

[Ichini_Sanshigo]

@Zagadka

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 think this sort of gets at the heart of the argument (also discussed in this thread ). All cultures have built up a ceremony around death, be it burial, cremation, or whatever. The general thought is that even as one’s spirit/soul leaves the body, there is something sacred about the body itself. To this end, the idea of desecrating a corpse (eating, screwing, or carving it up for organs) has acquired this air of repulsiveness. Yeah, you’re dead, you don’t care, but the idea that the body is sacred is so ingrained, and the idea that not leaving it intact is so gruesome, that many people just don’t want to donate. It’s visceral. It’s also their right.

So how does this relate to an opt-out system? After all, as others have mentioned, if the idea is that appalling, you should take the time to fill out the form saying you don’t want to donate, right? Well, there’s the guilt trip involved - you have to go the extra step and, in the process actually confront the reasons you don’t want to donate.

I’m much less concerned with that than with the fact that the opt-out set-up seems a bit, well, deceptive. It’s like, “Shhh, let’s not tell people they’re donors - let’s just take the organs and run”. It sounds ridiculous, but it’s still not a pleasant thought. Consent shouldn’t be implied for something like this - it should be explicitly obtained.

[Zagadka]

@Cinnamon Girl

May I suggest that you have come to the conclusion that we may be able to educate, right here at SDMB, non-organ donors on the value of their organs to those who could get something of value out of them?

Maybe that’s it.

[/quote]
Oh yeah, sign up to donate your damn organs already. You really, really, really won’t need them when you’re dead! I promise!
[/QUOTE]

I’m already all signed up, and ready for the rest of me to be cremated. You’re preaching to the choir with me. I’m just trying to argue out the under-represented other side as I understand it. I seem to be doing a poor job, but meh.

I simply have reservations about implied organ donation. As Ichini Sanshigo points out, there are other arguments against this, including the use of coersion.

Scenario: A law is passed making organ donation assumed. Would money be spent to educate the people about their option to opt out?

[Cinnamon_Girl]

@Ichini Sanshigo

So how does this relate to an opt-out system? After all, as others have mentioned, if the idea is that appalling, you should take the time to fill out the form saying you don’t want to donate, right? Well, there’s the guilt trip involved - you have to go the extra step and, in the process actually confront the reasons you don’t want to donate.

First off, thank you, Ichini, for bringing us full circle. I had forgotten to relate my blabbering to the question in the OP. I think your idea makes sense. Those of us who have already chosen to be organ donors more than likely understand the benefits of it. But those who have not may benefit from bringing the subject to their attention by requiring them to make a choice as opposed to simply ignoring it. I don’t think that’s asking a lot. If you just don’t want to know, DON’T read the brochure (become informed) & DO check the box that says, “No, thanks.” Maybe requiring people to opt out may be preying on the lazy, forgetful, or indecisive, but it’s not like it’s set in stone as many have pointed out that your family may override regardless of what your driver’s license says. And who knows, maybe there will be more organs available to those who need. Where’s the damage? This is why I also support opt-out. In the event, someone could prove damage as a result of it, I might change my mind.

Personally, I’d prefer that people get informed and make the decision to do it without twisting their arm, but that’s obviously not gonna happen. It’s not really even that hard to do; it’s less time-consuming and less intrusive to one’s life than blood donation. Can it get an easier than that?

I guess since I’m not particularly religious and truly believe I’m simply really complex organic material, I cannot relate to and will likely never understand why someone could be against such an important contribution to humanity. I especially don’t get why it’s okay to give your mom one of your kidneys while you’re alive, but not okay to give it to a complete stranger when you’re dead. It boggles me why any god should care if you’re doing so to promote life which is what he/she/it granted us in the first place. Oh well.

@Zagadka

I simply have reservations about implied organ donation. As Ichini Sanshigo points out, there are other arguments against this, including the use of coersion.

Scenario: A law is passed making organ donation assumed. Would money be spent to educate the people about their option to opt out?

I would assume they would need to spend as much as they currently do (I have no idea how much), but more likely, a bit more to educate those who have already opted in as well as those who haven’t, that the rules have changed. Personally, I don’t think they spend enough on education about organ donation or at least I don’t see it. Maybe we should add it to high school science classes right before kids start getting their driver’s licenses. Maybe employers could get in on the act and have drives (like blood drives only for organ donation education). Maybe health insurance companies would be willing to give donor discounts to those who have signed up (like auto insurance safe driving discounts). Maybe someone could sponsor National Transplant Day and remind us about organ donation as we exchange chocolate hearts and livers (hehe- I can see the Hallmark card now: I really wanted to give you my liver…but I’m not dead yet, so all I got you was this creepy card!). Yeah, I’m all for education. Look at all the money they spend trying to educating people about drug abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, etc. At least organ donation education would be more of a: Hey do this! instead of Hey, don’t do that!