›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Opt-in/opt-out organ donors

trogdor9trogdor9
edited April 2010 in Flamewars
This was on Reddit, but Reddit's full of idiots so I think we can have some more interesting discussion here.

I think organ donation should be opt-out rather than opt-in. When people don't want to make a decision, they don't and they just go with the default. If we change the default, then many lives will be saved. Now's when people say, "But what about the rights of the donor?" Yeah, what about them? The donor is dead. Why should their body have more rights than a rock on the side of the road? Wouldn't the better default option be the one that saves multiple lives, not the one where the body rots away in a box underground?
«134567…10

Comments

  • ElJoe0ElJoe0
    Just to let you know, if I die, I want to give all my organs to Scrym as a thank you for the podcasts and forum.
  • ChurbaChurba
    Just to let you know, if I die, I want to give all my organs to Scrym as a thank you for the podcasts and forum.
    I can just see them opening a fed-ex box with your liver in it, going "What the fuck is this?"
  • AprecheApreche
    There was a Simpson's episode where they made a joke about this dude being super-powered because he had gotten a whole bunch of extra organs implanted. I fail at finding the image, or even a quote.
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    This TED Talk is highly appropriate.
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    edited April 2010
    I was once told by an ex-LAPD officer that I should never opt-in, because he saw cases where if a person who opted-in appeared to be on the verge of dying (but could still be resuscitated), paramedics would let him go to get organs for transplant.

    Thus, I don't opt-in, and I would opt-out. Also:

    image
    Post edited by WindUpBird on
  • SailSail
    edited April 2010
    What a healthy child, and such plentiful organs!
    Post edited by Sail on
  • FunfetusFunfetus
    I was once told by an ex-LAPD officer that I should never opt-in, because he saw cases where if a person who opted-in appeared to be on the verge of dying (but could still be resuscitated), paramedics would let him go to get organs for transplant.
    My stepbrother, who was an EMT, also told me this.
  • AprecheApreche
    I was once told by an ex-LAPD officer that I should never opt-in, because he saw cases where if a person who opted-in appeared to be on the verge of dying (but could still be resuscitated), paramedics would let him go to get organs for transplant.
    My stepbrother, who was an EMT, also told me this.
    I have always worried about this, but had no evidence that it ever happened.
  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    I have always worried about this, but had no evidence that it ever happened.
    And I can't see how it would be true. How would the paramedics gain from your death? Do they get paid if they bring in a dead organ donor?
  • SailSail
    edited April 2010
    Not everything is about money. They have a sense of the greater good, like you and me. There was a Harvard study where they asked people if they would let a terminally-ill organ donor die prematurely if they knew that it would allow three other people to be saved. The consensus was almost unanimously in favor of letting the terminally ill man die. It's part of human nature to allow the sacrifice of few for the benefit of many. And, given the fact that paramedics see death every day, they view death in a little more desensitized way. You would probably make the same decision if you were in their shoes.
    Post edited by Sail on
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    edited April 2010
    It's part of human nature to allow the sacrifice of few for the benefit of many.
    This, I'm not so sure about.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • TheEvilTwinTheEvilTwin
    Maybe it would be more accurate to say, "It's part of human nature to allow other people to make the sacrifice of few for the benefit of many."
  • Dr. TimoDr. Timo
    I was once told by an ex-LAPD officer that I should never opt-in, because he saw cases where if a person who opted-in appeared to be on the verge of dying (but could still be resuscitated), paramedics would let him go to get organs for transplant.
    My stepbrother, who was an EMT, also told me this.
    First, if those people seriously believe what they say, they are probably guilty of some form of negligence for not reporting those instances to the authorities. If they, or you, have doubts about the validity of the story then they are probably guilty of some form of defamation. Saying shit like this without proper references/proof is the worst kind of FUD.

    Second, all these scary stories lose their base premise when almost everybody is a donor since there will not be a shortage of organs.
  • Victor FrostVictor Frost
    I am NOT an organ donor. My body may be a soulless vessel for my consciousness, but I'd like it intact when I go THANKYOUVERYMUCH.
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    I have actually opted to have extra organs inserted in my body as I approach death. Maybe one heart can't save me, but six? Possibly.
  • Victor FrostVictor Frost
    I have actually opted to have extra organs inserted in my body as I approach death. Maybe one heart can't save me, but six? Possibly.
    Hey, if two hearts is enough for a timelord, it ought to be enough for you.
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    edited April 2011
    I'm just jumping into a Gallifreyan Loom before I die.
    Post edited by WindUpBird on
  • AprecheApreche
    I am NOT an organ donor. My body may be a soulless vessel for my consciousness, but I'd like it intact when I go THANKYOUVERYMUCH.
    Why? This is the most moronic and selfish thing I have ever heard. I don't even think organ donation should be optional. It should be mandatory for everybody. You aren't using your body anymore. You're dead. Your body could extend the lives of some other people out there. But instead you want your very valuable organs to be buried and turned into worm food instead of being turned into years of someone else's life.

    Actually, I got an even better idea. If you're not an organ donor and you need an organ from someone else, we just let you die. To get, you gotta give.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited April 2011
    I am NOT an organ donor. My body may be a soulless vessel for my consciousness, but I'd like it intact when I go THANKYOUVERYMUCH.
    Why? This is the most moronic and selfish thing I have ever heard. I don't even think organ donation should be optional. It should be mandatory for everybody. You aren't using your body anymore. You're dead.
    What's going to happen to your money and property when you die? Using the line of reasoning you just used to Sonic, you're selfish and moronic if you want it to be distributed in accordance with your wishes instead of just allowing the state to give it all to charity.

    Seriously, there's not much difference there. As a society, we recognize that people desire to have certain things happen with their financial estates after death, and we try to comply with those wishes. It's perfectly analogous to extend that recognition and courtesy to a person's wishes with regards to his remains. If Sonic doesn't want to be an organ donor, that's HIS business, not yours. He's not moronic, nor is he selfish.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • AprecheApreche
    edited April 2011
    What's going to happen to your money and property when you die? Using the line of reasoning you just used to Sonic, you're selfish and moronic if you want it to be distributed in accordance with your wishes instead of just allowing the state to give it all to charity.
    I don't give any shits about what happens to any of my things after I'm dead. I'm dead! Burn it in a fire for all I care. I mean, that's wasteful and bad, but it's no bother to me. I'm dead! If the state takes it and gives it all to charity, that's a damn good option I say. Dead people don't vote, they have no say. Once you are dead, what you want doesn't matter anymore. The living should do what is best for the people who are still alive. If you are dead, you don't even have desires anymore because you don't exist!
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • RymRym
    edited April 2011
    It's perfectly analogous to extend that recognition and courtesy to a person's wishes with regards to his remains.
    I don't agree. It's a public boon that comes at no material detriment to his estate (except in particular specific circumstances, such as when a parent's organ could save a relative or child, and they would like it to go to said person ahead of any other organ recipients).

    I don't believe anyone should be able to opt out of organ donation for any reason, and I believe there is sufficient distinction between organs and other property to justify the separate cases.

    My three primary justifications:
    1. The organs/body have little or no material value to the estate.
    2. There is a pervasive shortage of donated organs compared to the need.
    3. Religious beliefs should be tolerated only so long as they do not conflict with existing law.

    On point 3, if I can't smoke weed due to my weed religion, then I shouldn't be able to refuse to donate organs due to my heartless bastard religion.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited April 2011
    It's perfectly analogous to extend that recognition and courtesy to a person's wishes with regards to his remains.
    I don't agree. It's a public boon that comes at no material detriment to his estate (except in particular specific circumstances, such as when a parent's organ could save a relative or child, and they would like it to go to said person ahead of any other organ recipients).

    I don't believe anyone should be able to opt out of organ donation for any reason, and I believe there is sufficient distinction between organs and other property to justify the separate cases.

    My three primary justifications:
    1. The organs/body have little or no material value to the estate.
    2. There is a pervasive shortage of donated organs compared to the need.
    3. Religious beliefs should be tolerated only so long as they do not conflict with existing law.

    On point 3, if I can't smoke weed due to my weed religion, then I shouldn't be able to refuse to donate organs due to my heartless bastard religion.
    Religion has little to do with it, and the material value of a person's remains are not the point at all. The person own his body. He (and his family) gets to make the decision as to how it is disposed. If the person want his body cremated it will be cremated. If he wants to be buried, he will be buried. If he wants to be shot into space, he will be shot into space. If he wants his corpse to go on the road with BodyWorks, that's where it will go. The only thing limiting him is public health risk. If he doesn't want to donate his organs, he doesn't have to donate them. Just as with his money, he OWNS his body, and he gets to decide what is done with it.

    Are you suggesting that everyone's physical remains should escheat to the state? That would be a radical departure from current law that I believe few people would support.
    Dead people don't vote, they have no say. Once you are dead, what you want doesn't matter anymore. The living should do what is best for the people who are still alive. If you are dead, you don't even have desires anymore because you don't exist!
    It doesn't matter if they vote. The law respects their desires regarding the disposal of both their estates and their remains. Those desires are usually written in things called "wills". If a person dies without a will, there are specific procedures for disposal of the estate, and these try to take the decedent's and family's desires or possible desires into account as much as possible.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • AprecheApreche
    edited April 2011
    Religion has little to do with it, and the material value of a person's remains are not the point at all. The person own his body. He (and his family) gets to make the decision as to how it is disposed. Are you suggesting that everyone's physical remains should escheat to the state? That would be a radical departure from current law that I believe few people would support.
    It doesn't matter if they vote. The law respects their desires regarding the disposal of both their estates and their remains. Those desires are usually written in things called "wills". If a person dies without a will, there are specific procedures for disposal of the estate, and these try to take the decedent's and family's desires or possible desires into account as much as possible.
    Yes, you are correct, that is what the law currently says. You are also correct that few people will support changes to those laws.

    What I am saying is that the law is morally wrong. Just like old laws that said black people had to use separate drinking fountains were morally wrong. I also think that anyone who would rather have their family member's organs buried in the dirt or burned to ashes rather than having someone else's life extended, is morally depraved. You are neglecting to save a person's life when it is easily within your power to do so. Your weird emotional attachment to a corpse that happened to belong to someone who was in your family is not even close to being a good reason to save the lives of suffering people. If we can give the liver to someone with cancer, the heart to someone with heart disease, and the eyes to a blind person, that's three lives significantly improved and/or saved. And that's only three organs out of many. What are the consequences? You crying in a corner because those organs were in your brother's corpse? Seems like a good deal to me. Make one person cry and save a bunch of lives. Yes to that trade-off every time. Heck if I could save lives by crying, I'd chop onions all god damned day.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • RymRym
    Are you suggesting that everyone's physical remains should escheat to the state? That would be a radical departure from current law that I believe few people would support.
    But why not make the distinction between organs and body? The "remains" are perfectly presentable for a traditional funeral even after massive donations in almost all cases. Mandate that organs are taken when necessary, but that the presentable body itself is still given over to the family as it is now.

    The secondary problem is our fascination with dead bodies in general. I believe the above is perfectly reasonable (my proposal, not Scott's). Do you want to hear my radical real opinion?

    We should ban embalming and cemetery-burial entirely. All bodies should be cremated or reduced to bone and, unless families want these remains for their own purposes ("check it out: grandpa's skull), they should be interred in mass ossuaries.
  • AprecheApreche
    We should ban embalming and cemetery-burial entirely. All bodies should be cremated or reduced to bone and, unless families want these remains for their own purposes ("check it out: grandpa's skull), they should be interred in mass ossuaries.
    Yes.
  • AprecheApreche
    edited April 2011
    But why not make the distinction between organs and body? The "remains" are perfectly presentable for a traditional funeral even after massive donations in almost all cases. Mandate that organs are taken when necessary, but that the presentable body itself is still given over to the family as it is now.
    This was true until recently. Now we can do face transplants! So awesome!
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    What I am saying is that the law is morally wrong. Just like old laws that said black people had to use separate drinking fountains were morally wrong.
    That's your analogy? That property rights are the same as Jim Crow laws? Is Sonic a racist because he wants to keep his organs?
    Your weird emotional attachment to a corpse that happened to belong to someone who was in your family is not even close to being a good reason to save the lives of suffering people. If we can give the liver to someone with cancer, the heart to someone with heart disease, and the eyes to a blind person, that's three lives significantly improved and/or saved. And that's only three organs out of many. What are the consequences? You crying in a corner because those organs were in your brother's corpse? Seems like a good deal to me.
    It's not an emotional attachment. It doesn't have to involve crying. It's the person's property. People get to decide how their property is disposed. End of story.
  • AprecheApreche
    It's not an emotional attachment. It doesn't have to involve crying. It's the person's property. People get to decide how their property is disposed. End of story.
    Let's say I own a piece of property, a lawn gnome. Let's say that by some kind of circumstances that lawn gnome can save multiple lives, and vastly improve many more lives, if I relinquish ownership. If I refuse to give it up, I may not be a murderer, but I'm pretty close. I'm a lifeguard standing on the beach laughing while people drown in the lake. It's an otherwise useless lawn gnome. I think the government should definitely have the right to sieze the gnome.
  • RymRym
    People get to decide how their property is disposed. End of story.
    Except when they die with debt. Then the state decides first, pays the debts, and gives the rest to the family (sometimes after taxes).

    So, couldn't we have an organ tax at death?
  • RymRym
    That's your analogy? That property rights are the same as Jim Crow laws? Is Sonic a racist because he wants to keep his organs?
    Scott's analogies are like Hitler.
Sign In or Register to comment.