The ethics of organ donation legislation.

[.Andy]

In Australia we have a compulsory opt-in system as far as organ donation goes. If one wishes to donate one's organs it has to be done in writing. Of course on the majority of occasions this doesn't get done/isn't done/isn't clear and organs that could be used go to waste. There's another level of complexity in that the next of kin may override an individuals opt-in wishes on any grounds. Combined with the very restricted medical circumstances in which organs are suitable for transplantation, a severe organ shortage results.

I've often been interested in the idea of an opt-out system. In such a system everyone, irrespective of who they are, is on the organ donation list. If they object there's a routine, simple, and easy method in place to opt-out. This will of course greatly increase the number of people from whom organs can be sourced if they satisfy the necessary medical criteria.

So I was interested in what you guys thought. What does your country/state/community do? What do you do? What are your thoughts on organ donation and ways in which the participation rates could be greatly increased? Is organ donation such a widely acceptable charitable act that the wish to donate organs could be an assumed unless otherwise indicated?

[r.j.s]

I would object to such a system because it would mean that you no longer own your own body. Even if it was simple to opt-out, things happen, paperwork gets lost, accidents could occur before you had the time to think about it.

At what age could you opt out? At what age could they use an organ/tissue?

There are too many variables for a government to ***** up on.

The decision is a personal one, that should be decided individually.

As for me, I am an organ donor, as well as a blood donor and bone marrow donor (if I ever match anyone)

[Cromulent]

I would object to such a system because it would mean that you no longer own your own body. Even if it was simple to opt-out, things happen, paperwork gets lost, accidents could occur before you had the time to think about it.

The question is, does it really matter? You would be dead after all.

[r.j.s]

The question is, does it really matter? You would be dead after all.

It does, actually. It's really the same thing as a Will. Why don't you want someone to decide what happens for themselves? Are we just organ farmers for others?

[iBlue]

You know, I don't know what the rules for that are in the UK. I looked on my license and I don't see anything about organ donation, like I had on my California and Washington licences.

I think an opt-in scheme is great. If it means so damn much to someone to keep their organs then they can take the time to opt-out. Otherwise don't let them go to waste.

[r.j.s]

You know, I don't know what the rules for that are in the UK.

I think we need more education, rather than legislation.

How many people do you know that are reluctant because they think some EMT will let them die in order to harvest their organs? Imagine if organ donation was automatic - that myth would never die.

[.Andy]

It does, actually. It's really the same thing as a Will. Why don't you want someone to decide what happens for themselves?
I guess the difference between a will and your organs is that in a will you're leaving something of value to those you chose to. When it comes to organ donation it's something of zero value to your relatives - unless they need an organ and are an immunological match, something that is highly unlikely.

Are we just organ farmers for others?
The question could just as easily be levelled another way. Why shouldn't we be a source of organs to save the lives of others? Is there a greater gift to a complete stranger?

[iBlue]

I think we need more education, rather than legislation.

How many people do you know that are reluctant because they think some EMT will let them die in order to harvest their organs? Imagine if organ donation was automatic - that myth would never die.

Generally I would agree with that statement, but not this time. I know the depths of the "can't be bothered" attitude and if having a compulsory opt-in scheme can save lives, why not? Like I said, if it means so much to a person to keep their organs to themselves then they can take the time to opt-out.

I seriously doubt an EMT or any other medical professional is going to let a person die for the sake of organs. If that happens, and I accept that it COULD happen, it's going to be very very rare. That is a stupid myth.

[r.j.s]

Not trying to debate organ donation, but I think legislation is a bad idea. What hasn't government screwed up that started with good intentions?

What age can you opt-out?

What age can they take organs/tissue if you meet the criteria?

[r.j.s]

I seriously doubt an EMT or any other medical professional is going to let a person die for the sake of organs. If that happen, and I accept that it COULD happen, it's going to be very very rare. That is a stupid myth.

Agreed, but stupid or not, I've come across a lot of people that believe it.

[Cromulent]

It does, actually. It's really the same thing as a Will. Why don't you want someone to decide what happens for themselves? Are we just organ farmers for others?

Not really. Free will only applies to the living, since the person donating their organs is dead free will does not have any bearing on the situation.

[Beerfloat]

My country has an opt-in system, where you have to specifically make it be known that your body is available for organ transplant and/or medical research. So I carry a card that identifies me as a potential donor, and my family is aware of my wish.

However, I strongly feel that such a system is upside down. Being part of the donor pool should be the default, with the option of an easy opt-out (without any questions asked and no consequences on your position in the queue for receiving organs should you need them).

The problem is that there are really only relatively few people who object to being a donor, but a fairly large group of people just don't deal with the issue, and in the current system those automatically become non-donors. We can't afford such carelessness any longer, considering that there are long waiting lists for many types of organ transplants. Which leads to needless loss of life and/or quality of life among those who are in need.

[r.j.s]

Not really. Free will only applies to the living, since the person donating their organs is dead free will does not have any bearing on the situation.

Not free will. A legal Will.

And if that is the case, why don't we create legislation that mandates everyone be cremated to save space in cemeteries, unless they opt-out of course?

[Cromulent]

Not free will. A legal Will.

Ah sorry my mistake.

And if that is the case, why don't we create legislation that mandates everyone be cremated to save space in cemeteries, unless they opt-out of course?

Sounds like a good idea to me. Although I think I would miss walking around the small graveyards in rural England. They really are very picturesque.

Still, I guess they will stay put.

[Beerfloat]

And if that is the case, why don't we create legislation that mandates everyone be cremated to save space in cemeteries, unless they opt-out of course?

That's fine, but not too quickly because we need to scan those bodies for usable organs first. ;)

[r.j.s]

That's fine, but not too quickly because we need to scan those bodies for usable organs first. ;)

After they are all harvested from the farms the government has allowed us to maintain over the years, of course.

Back to my previous points about the ages ... At what age does it start?

[.Andy]

Back to my previous points about the ages ... At what age does it start?
Over 16? Under 16 with parent/guardian permission?

[Cromulent]

Back to my previous points about the ages ... At what age does it start?

At what ever age the organs become usable.

[r.j.s]

Over 16? Under 16 with parent/guardian permission?

Ok.

This was just curiosity ...

[iBlue]

Agreed, but stupid or not, I've come across a lot of people that believe it.
Then dare I say they are idiots, paranoid and selfish ones at that. I don't think a default opt-out scheme is appropriate under their terms. I am also more than sure they will take the time to opt out of an opt-in scheme, since they must have their top most organ stuck firmly up their southern most one. Explains the crappy mentality entirely though.


And if that is the case, why don't we create legislation that mandates everyone be cremated to save space in cemeteries, unless they opt-out of course?
Although not the same issue [as that is about saving space and organ donation is about saving lives], I'd be cool with that.

[takao]

in Austria we have a _opt-out_ (you had a typo there) system that seems to work ok.. i don't remember any discussion about it in the population .. it seems to be generally accepted

though the laws mentions that no organs can be used which inflict with the "piety of death" meaning no skin/eye/face transplants etc.

don't like it: you have to be enter into a register or made your will clear through a legal representative

and yes this law also applies to _all_ people who just happen to die in austria (even though it is avoided if possible to do so on non austrians)

edit: the point is this: the majority of people don't care either way:
in countries with opt in system few people sign up
in countries with opt out system few people sign "out"

also the opt-out does away with stuff like asking patients in their death bed if they had thought about organ donation .. which i find rather more troublesome (even though it works and helps to increase donor rates)

[edesignuk]

I think it should be opt out rather than opt in.

Then I believe that when I'm dead I'm dead. If a bit of me can help someone else, what do I care, I'm dead.

[Beerfloat]

After they are all harvested from the farms the government has allowed us to maintain over the years, of course.

Back to my previous points about the ages ... At what age does it start?

Oh that's just a detail really isn't it? Open for discussion of course.

Let's say at 16 you can opt-out by yourself, before that your parents/legal guardians can do it for you.

[r.j.s]

Then I believe that when I'm dead I'm dead. If a bit of me can help someone else, what do I care, I'm dead.

True, but I don't think the decision needs to be made for you unless you file paperwork saying otherwise. Maybe I've just had too much paperwork lost by the US Gov. to have any faith in that kind of opt-out system here.

[edesignuk]

True, but I don't think the decision needs to be made for you unless you file paperwork saying otherwise. Maybe I've just had too much paperwork lost by the US Gov. to have any faith in that kind of opt-out system here.As it stands the decision is made for you that you don't want to donate. Which is worse?

[r.j.s]

Oh that's just a detail really isn't it? Open for discussion of course.

Well, it would matter if they could take organs or tissue at age 8, but you couldn't opt-out until 16.

[Cromulent]

Well, it would matter if they could take organs or tissue at age 8, but you couldn't opt-out until 16.

I really can't think of a single good reason why anyone would even want to opt-out anyway.

[r.j.s]

I really can't think of a single good reason why anyone would even want to opt-out anyway.

Yes, people are selfish ... that doesn't mean government should be given the power to control their life or death because of it.

[iBlue]

Yes, people are selfish ... that doesn't mean government should be given the power to control their life or death because of it.

That's a bit dramatic. Their life and death is not being controlled. If it means so bloody much to them to keep their precious organs, they can opt-out of donating.

[edesignuk]

Yes, people are selfish ... that doesn't mean government should be given the power to control their life or death because of it.I don't know. I think the government put everyone through the ringers enough when they are alive for seemingly no benefit. At least with this the policy they force upon you is genuinely for the greater good, and you could still opt out.

[xUKHCx]

You know, I don't know what the rules for that are in the UK.

This

we have a opt-in system as far as organ donation goes. If one wishes to donate one's organs it has to be done in writing. Of course on the majority of occasions this doesn't get done/isn't done/isn't clear and organs that could be used go to waste. There's another level of complexity in that the next of kin may override an individuals opt-in wishes on any grounds. Combined with the very restricted medical circumstances in which organs are suitable for transplantation, a severe organ shortage results.

and I believe the next of kin can give the decision for the organs to be used if the person does not have a donor card.

I've often been interested in the idea of an opt-out system. In such a system everyone, irrespective of who they are, is on the organ donation list.

I am totally for an opt out scheme.

I have made everyone around me aware of my decisions so that if I do die I am pretty confident that my organs will be donated (however it is not something I can 100% guarentee). I am even looking at donating my body to science upon death. I don't really care if some medical student gets a giggle out of my wang as I will be dead.

[r.j.s]

That's a bit dramatic. Their life and death is not being controlled. If it means so bloody much to them to keep their precious organs, they can opt-out of donating.

I don't know. I think the government put everyone through the ringers enough when they are alive for seemingly no benefit. At least with this the policy they force upon you is genuinely for the greater good, and you could still opt out.

Like I said, I just believe the more the government has control over, the more it can screw up - even with the best intentions.

[iBlue]

Now I am completely confused. I thought opt-in meant by default you were made an organ donor unless you opt-out. I am all for that.

Or is this the other way around? :confused:

[r.j.s]

Now I am completely confused. I thought opt-in meant by default you were made an organ donor unless you opt-out. I am all for that.

Or is this the other way around? :confused:

I thought opt-out was where you were in, unless you chose to opt-out, based on the OP.

[.Andy]

Now I am completely confused. I thought opt-in meant by default you were made an organ donor unless you opt-out. I am all for that.

Or is this the other way around? :confused:
Opt-out is where you are automatically in and have to chose the option to be out.

And vice-versa.

[takao]

i just found the numbers for germany in an article:

80% are in favor of organ donation yet only 12% have an donor card and only with 20% of all deaths the will of the dead is known to the family


and if somebody is really that paranoid about organ donation: don't buy a motorcycle

[iBlue]

Opt-out is where you are automatically in and have to chose the option to be out.

And vice-versa.

Ok, thank you. I got myself all confoooooozed! :o

That's a shame the UK is in the same boat. I much prefer the idea of being an organ donor by default and having an easy way to opt-out of that.

I am totally for donating, take it all, I'm dead and I don't care. As it is, because of this default, I am not a donor and sort of resent that I have to go through a hassle to become one. I am sure a lot of people are in the same situation and can't be bothered, thus organs are going to waste. That is a shame.

Here is a link to the UK donor registration site (http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/how_to_become_a_donor/registration/consent.jsp). I'm doing it now.

[r.j.s]

don't buy a motorcycle

From the M/C wrecks I've seen, the organs are usually no good.

[takao]

From the M/C wrecks I've seen, the organs are usually no good.

let's say it this way: it's no coincidence that the hospitals in innsbruck are very busy and expierenced with transplants and that in the region there are a lot of mountain passes

[xUKHCx]

Ok, thank you. I got myself all confoooooozed! :o

Don't worry from reading your posts it was obvious which way you were thinking (despite it saying the complete opposite)


Here is a link to the UK donor registration site (http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/how_to_become_a_donor/registration/consent.jsp). I'm doing it now.

I always advise people to get a donor card as well (should have them in your local doctors, blood donation centre and pharmacies). I have one that is in my wallet and a few around the house in obvious places (although might be too late then but you never know). It is also adviseable to tell everyone you know. I think I even told my doctor but I don't know if he put it on my medical record (or if there is even a chance to do that).

[iBlue]

Don't worry from reading your posts it was obvious which way you were thinking (despite it saying the complete opposite)



:o My brain should not be up for donation should I die today, it's hopelessly out of order. http://upc.edesignuk.com/uploads/smilies/fntard.gif


I always advise people to get a donor card as well (should have them in your local doctors, blood donation centre and pharmacies). I have one that is in my wallet and a few around the house in obvious places (although might be too late then but you never know). It is also adviseable to tell everyone you know. I think I even told my doctor but I don't know if he put it on my medical record (or if there is even a chance to do that).

This is good, so I'm quoting it.

[Cromulent]

Here is a link to the UK donor registration site (http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/how_to_become_a_donor/registration/consent.jsp). I'm doing it now.

Thanks, I just registered.

At least this discussion has done some good then (assuming somebody actually wants my rubbish organs anyway).

[iBlue]

At least this discussion has done some good then (assuming somebody actually wants my rubbish organs anyway).

I will resist turning this good gesture into a bad pun. I'd probably screw it up anyway with the way my brain is malfunctioning today.

[Beerfloat]

Here is a link to the UK donor registration site (http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/how_to_become_a_donor/registration/consent.jsp). I'm doing it now.

Good job! :)

[Ugg]

in Austria we have a _opt-out_ (you had a typo there) system that seems to work ok.. i don't remember any discussion about it in the population .. it seems to be generally accepted

though the laws mentions that no organs can be used which inflict with the "piety of death" meaning no skin/eye/face transplants etc.

don't like it: you have to be enter into a register or made your will clear through a legal representative

also the opt-out does away with stuff like asking patients in their death bed if they had thought about organ donation .. which i find rather more troublesome (even though it works and helps to increase donor rates)

That sounds like a very sensible law. I agree that "piety of death" should be observed, but what if people "do" want to donate their eyes?

I also agree that asking patients and their families on their death bed is pretty horrific. I know what my parents would say which is sad because it has nothing to do with them at all.

Are there any issues with religious minorities? Specifically the Turkish population?

[ucfgrad93]

Even though I am an organ donor, I prefer an opt in situation. I don't think anyone should be forced to be a donor.

[Cromulent]

Even though I am an organ donor, I prefer an opt in situation. I don't think anyone should be forced to be a donor.

No one is forcing you (as in the general you, not you personally) to be an organ donor. If a person is too lazy to opt-out then that is their problem and their fault.

[takao]

That sounds like a very sensible law. I agree that "piety of death" should be observed, but what if people "do" want to donate their eyes?

i suspect he can always donate them additionally with an additional will

i just looked it up and after 16 you can decide on your own and before that you parents can put you on the non-donating list or delete you from it


Are there any issues with religious minorities? Specifically the Turkish population?

hm none that i know of since in islam the decision isn't really centralized (the german and austrian "Islamrat" support it afaik) and if it's really a problem for some the registry is a "no question asked" registry.. simply name, adress, social security number and gender

and if a christian opposes it "for religious reason" he need to be smacked over the head anyway


looking at the homepage it doesn't look there is much demand since all forms are supposed to be sent to a single person

[anjinha]

Hey, it's opt-out in Portugal. :) Apparently we can do something right.

[SLC Flyfishing]

I think this is a great idea!

I'm already a donor anyway. And I'm even registered to donate marrow before death should mine be needed.

But I do understand why some might feel apprehensive. So I suppose the best method would be as it is, you must opt in.

SLC

[chrmjenkins]

Are there any issues with religious minorities? Specifically the Turkish population?

Thought I was the only one thinking about this.

I'd be perfectly fine with opt-out, and thank the OP. I realized that when I got my new CA driver's license, they didn't ask, so I just went online and signed up to donate. I see nothing wrong with them taking my eyes, as they can use a glass replacement to hold shape under the lid. They suck, so I doubt they'd want them :D

[No1451]

An opt out would be better in my opinion, I know plenty of people who simply have forgotten or never gotten around to opting IN for organ donation.

As for families being allowed to remove a person's designation as an organ-donor, that is quite simply ********.

[KingYaba]

My organs. My blood. I'll decide who gets them. If I want to be a part of a donation circle then I'll sign up voluntarily. The policy should be opt-in not opt-out.

[chrmjenkins]

My organs. My blood. I'll decide who gets them. If I want to be a part of a donation circle then I'll sign up voluntarily. The policy should be opt-in not opt-out.

How exactly are you going to decide who gets what when your brain no longer functions?

[KingYaba]

How exactly are you going to decide who gets what when your brain no longer functions?

My will (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_(law))?

[chrmjenkins]

My will (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_(law))?

Really? So either,

A) Your organs and blood can only go to a select group of people determined by you before your death.
B) You will participate in the selection process via a medium.

If you are saying you're will will determine whether or not your organs can be given away, that's redundant to the current registry. If you want your relatives to screen the recipients, that's why they (the selection committee) pre-screen recipients before they put them on the list.

[blackfox]

I am signed up to be an organ donor - have been since my first drivers license.

Of course, my organs are of the chinese toy variety - poorly made and probably contain too much lead.

I am not versed in the realities of organ donation, but seem inclined to agree with the 'opt-out' standard for many of the reasons already raised.

I wonder whether this will become more of an issue in the coming years - on one hand, life expectancies are rising - with it becoming more likely that organs are going to wear out. OTOH, stem-cell research and it's ilk may make it irrelevant, if donor organs can be made in the lab.

[KingYaba]

Your organs and blood can only go to a select group of people determined by you before your death.
You say it like that's a bad thing. See quote below:

I would object to such a system because it would mean that you no longer own your own body.

[chrmjenkins]

You say it like that's a bad thing. See quote below:

What I don't understand is the mechanism. There is no way of knowing who could receive the organ. Pre-selecting someone assumes they'll need it at the precise time you go (which you may not be able to predict).

And do you really own anything after death? What use do you have for your body after death?

[KingYaba]

What I don't understand is the mechanism. There is no way of knowing who could receive the organ. Pre-selecting someone assumes they'll need it at the precise time you go (which you may not be able to predict).
I see what you're saying. Still, maybe my family member(s) need something. A Will can delegate and give them "first dibbs." Or, maybe I believe these guys (http://www.unos.org/), for example, offer a better mechanism of screening and distribution than the government. It should be and is my choice.

And do you really own anything after death? What use do you have for your body after death?
What use? That's for me to decide. Maybe I'll donate my body to a medical school for up and coming surgeons to practice. Maybe I'll donate my liver to a drug company who needs to do some testing. Maybe I have religious beliefs that require cremation? My reasons are my own and I will exercise control over my body.

And do I own anything after death? Well, I won't because the Will will send my possessions to other people. :p

[takao]

I wonder whether this will become more of an issue in the coming years - on one hand, life expectancies are rising - with it becoming more likely that organs are going to wear out. OTOH, stem-cell research and it's ilk may make it irrelevant, if donor organs can be made in the lab.

i hope so that one day clone organs will save all those who currently don't make it

in fact in austria since the opt-out was introduced the amount of people on the waiting lists increased nearly as fast and continue to rise while organ donor cases more or less are on a plateau

if anybody is interested here the statistics from 1997 to 2007 fpr austria as a pdf:
http://www.oebig.org/upload/files/CMSEditor/Statistiken_Statistics_1998_2007.pdf

[chrmjenkins]

What use? That's for me to decide. Maybe I'll donate my body to a medical school for up and coming surgeons to practice. Maybe I'll donate my liver to a drug company who needs to do some testing. Maybe I have religious beliefs that require cremation? My reasons are my own and I will exercise control over my body.

And do I own anything after death? Well, I won't because the Will will send my possessions to other people. :p

We're not arguing about removing that control, we're simply saying the system would be opt out. There'd be nothing stopping you from doing so. You've given plenty of examples of what you may want to do with your organs/body, but you haven't explained how a new system would preclude you from doing so.

[remmy]

I think if it was opt-out system I would prefer it if it was not a government organisation, I would fear the mismanagement and possible miss-use if a MP was involved.

[KingYaba]

We're not arguing about removing that control, we're simply saying the system would be opt out. There'd be nothing stopping you from doing so. You've given plenty of examples of what you may want to do with your organs/body, but you haven't explained how a new system would preclude you from doing so.
Well, you asked me what use my body would be after my death. I answered.

In opt-out I'd be involuntarily enrolled in this program. That's a level of control I have lost. I shouldn't have to put forth any effort to take my name off a government donation list. It should be off by default!

[skunk]

I think if it was opt-out system I would prefer it if it was not a government organisation, I would fear the mismanagement and possible miss-use if a MP was involved.I have opted in. How would an MP possibly "misuse" my organs? It is very fashionable these days to fear mismanagement/misplacement/misuse of personal details by government, but any actual evidence that government is less efficient/reliable/trustworthy than a private organisation seems to me to be entirely anecdotal. There are useless twats in every organisation.

[takao]

I have opted in. How would an MP possibly "misuse" my organs? It is very fashionable these days to fear mismanagement/misplacement/misuse of personal details by government, but any actual evidence that government is less efficient/reliable/trustworthy than a private organisation seems to me to be entirely anecdotal. There are useless twats in every organisation.

perhaps instead of sending your organs to hospitals to save others send them to a dog food factory per accident .. you know it happens all the time around here...

[chrmjenkins]

Well, you asked me what use my body would be after my death. I answered.

In opt-out I'd be involuntarily enrolled in this program. That's a level of control I have lost. I shouldn't have to put forth any effort to take my name off a government donation list. It should be off by default!

You haven't lost any control. You still have the same options: opt-in or opt-out.

[r.j.s]

You haven't lost any control. You still have the same options: opt-in or opt-out.

Except that they went ahead and made the assumption that you would like your organs harvested after you die. In order to stop it you'd probably have to go to a courthouse and such, at least in the US. It's not going to be like the Do Not Call registry, where you just sign up online. And if the system is automatic, who is to say they will even check to see if you have removed yourself.

[chrmjenkins]

Except that they went ahead and made the assumption that you would like your organs harvested after you die. In order to stop it you'd probably have to go to a courthouse and such, at least in the US. It's not going to be like the Do Not Call registry, where you just sign up online. And if the system is automatic, who is to say they will even check to see if you have removed yourself.

He's saying he's lost control where he hasn't. Why would you have to go to a courthouse when you can do it online or at the DMV now? What reason do you have for believing they'd make it so hard to get off the list?

[skunk]

He's saying he's lost control where he hasn't. Why would you have to go to a courthouse when you can do it online or at the DMV now? What reason do you have for believing they'd make it so hard to get off the list?Because it's the government. Government = BAD.

[iJohnHenry]

OK, too many multi-quotes to even bother, so here goes.

I was talking to a passenger just yesterday about this very issue. She felt that it should be mandatory, but I counselled her otherwise.

Bureaucracies do screw-up, occasionally http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/j54.gif, and this cannot be undone, much like a wrongful execution.

Ontario has had opt-in for some time, with a detachable stub on the driver's licence. She was surprised to hear that the omnipresent Health Card can also have this info stored on it. God only knows you have to present the damn thing for all medical appointments. The coroner probably asks the dearly departed to present his/hers. :rolleyes: Much better than fumbling for a piece of paper, that they may or may not have with them when the Angel of Death comes a-callin'.

As to well-meaning (assumption) relatives getting in the way of an opt-in, they have the right to suggest that the "old dear was not of sound mind" when they made that choice.

Oh, ours states whole body for research, or specific parts, for either research or transplant.

Mine is on my Health Card. Have your way with me. A good way to go out. ;)

[r.j.s]

Because it's the government. Government = BAD.

I forgot, there are plenty of people that would like some bureaucrat telling them how they will live there lives and what they are allowed to do with their body. God, (oops, forgot I can't say that) forbid someone makes their own decisions rather than let some bureaucrat make a default choice. Is it really that hard to sign up? Hell, I'm signed up in two states.

[skunk]

I forgot, there are plenty of people that would like some bureaucrat telling them how they will live there lives and what they are allowed to do with their body. God, (oops, forgot I can't say that) forbid someone makes their own decisions rather than let some bureaucrat make a default choice. Is it really that hard to sign up? Hell, I'm signed up in two states.Nobody is stopping you from making your own decisions. As for liking bureaucrats telling them how to live their lives, I cannot see where anyone has suggested anything remotely like that, so I wonder what your motive is for inventing it.

[r.j.s]

Nobody is stopping you from making your own decisions.

No, they are merely assuming that you want to donate your organs when you die, I'd say that is making a decision for you. Even if it is reversible, it wont be as easy as anyone thinks.

As for liking bureaucrats telling them how to live their lives, I cannot see where anyone has suggested anything remotely like that, so I wonder what your motive is for inventing it.

Maybe not in this thread, but it is an underlying theme. There are plenty of vocal people out there that want to live their lives one way, and then make everyone else live the exact same way, because they cannot stand to see someone make their own choices (right or wrong).

[skunk]

No, they are merely assuming that you want to donate your organs when you die, I'd say that is making a decision for you.So is having an opt in assuming that you do not want to donate you organs? In what way is that different? :confused:

[r.j.s]

So is having an opt in assuming that you do not want to donate you organs? In what way is that different? :confused:

It's different because no decision has been made, it's not like they currently have a registry that lists NO next to everyone whom hasn't opted-in.

[anjinha]

I forgot, there are plenty of people that would like some bureaucrat telling them how they will live there lives and what they are allowed to do with their body. God, (oops, forgot I can't say that) forbid someone makes their own decisions rather than let some bureaucrat make a default choice. Is it really that hard to sign up? Hell, I'm signed up in two states.

You still have the same two choices: opt-in or opt out.

Most places where the system is opt-in a lot of people who wouldn't mind being organ donors don't go to the trouble to opt-in so they don't even bother to make that choice.

[iJohnHenry]

So is having an opt in assuming that you do not want to donate you organs? In what way is that different? :confused:

It's different because no decision has been made, it's not like they currently have a registry that lists NO next to everyone whom hasn't opted-in.

I must be getting tired, 'cause I don't get the confusion. :(

Tomorrow is another day. ;)

[r.j.s]

Most places where the system is opt-in a lot of people who wouldn't mind being organ donors don't go to the trouble to opt-in so they don't even bother to make that choice.

And if they cared so much about helping others, they might consider actually stepping up and making that choice, especially if it is something they would want to do anyway.

[chrmjenkins]

It's different because no decision has been made, it's not like they currently have a registry that lists NO next to everyone whom hasn't opted-in.

Yes, a de facto decision has been made, and that is to not donate. In either case, you're still maintaining a list of people of only one opinion in the matter. In this case, they won't maintain a list of those who haven't opted out. In either case, there's a default action, and there is a path to change that default option. The situations are symmetrical.

And if they cared so much about helping others, they might consider actually stepping up and making that choice, especially if it is something they would want to do anyway.

Sometimes, people forget. They'll do it tomorrow, or next week. No one expects to die tomorrow, so it's not a pressing issue for them. I just recounted the fact that the CA DMV never asked me when I got my license. They did ask me in Illinois, and I just assumed they would here. I forgot about it until I saw this topic, and I'm thankful that I did. An opt-out system catches all of those cases, and if the reasons given here are reasons to want to opt-out of that system, I could make your same argument that those that really care will opt out as well.

[r.j.s]

So, why change it from the way it is? It just becomes another way to lower the standard to the underachiever.

[chrmjenkins]

So, why change it from the way it is? It just becomes another way to lower the standard to the underachiever.

Because it would result in a lot more people getting the organs they need to stay alive. I don't understand your second statement.

[r.j.s]

I don't understand your second statement.

The entire argument for this law would be so that those that want to donate, but are too lazy to go sign up, or haven't even considered it (and therefore not presented any choice) will be automatically signed up to donate.

By catering to those that are too lazy, we just lower the standard so even less is expected of them. Were this to happen, people might think they are entitled to organs because donation is compulsory.

[chrmjenkins]

The entire argument for this law would be so that those that want to donate, but are too lazy to go sign up, or haven't even considered it (and therefore not presented any choice) will be automatically signed up to donate.

You act as if lazy is the sole reason people may not be aware. In any case, there is not enough awareness and discussion about it. Whatever you do, you must raise awareness about the issue. Besides, have you ever considered that it may also be of the assumption that people generally want to help others? Can you imagine anyone acting on behalf of someone else would say that he wished to withhold organs from someone else? No, the worst they would do is say they didn't know.


By catering to those that are too lazy, we just lower the standard so even less is expected of them. Were this to happen, people might think they are entitled to organs because donation is compulsory.

Yeah, people will be slamming shots in office pools to see who gets the first liver transplant. My bet's on Sally. She's a rotten drunk.

[r.j.s]

You act as if lazy is the sole reason people may not be aware. In any case, there is not enough awareness and discussion about it. Whatever you do, you must raise awareness about the issue.

I said that about a page and a half ago, but it was shot down in favor of legislation.

[.Andy]

The entire argument for this law would be so that those that want to donate, but are too lazy to go sign up, or haven't even considered it (and therefore not presented any choice) will be automatically signed up to donate.

By catering to those that are too lazy, we just lower the standard so even less is expected of them. Were this to happen, people might think they are entitled to organs because donation is compulsory.
The "entire argument" is not to cater to the lazy. The argument for an opt-out system comes from the idea of organ donation being viewed by the vast majority of the community as a positive that they'd like to participate in. For a multitude of reasons (which have already been demonstrated in this thread) people don't end up opting-in when they'd like to. Either because they never thought about it, never took the opportunity, or never spoke to their next of kin about it. It's a hard thing for a young and healthy individual to bring up and likely something that an individual doesn't think about. To call them "lazy" is a bit of hyperbole on your part which you've indulged in quite a bit in this thread already.

I said that about a page and a half ago, but it was shot down in favor of legislation.
Nobody shot down education.

[r.j.s]

For a multitude of reasons (which have already been demonstrated in this thread) people don't end up opting-in when they'd like to. Either because they never thought about it, never took the opportunity, or never spoke to their next of kin about it.

So, the answer is to force them into it?

To call them "lazy" is a bit of hyperbole on your part which you've indulged in quite a bit in this thread already.

Not hyperbole, just speaking from my experience in dealing with the way the USG has handled things that are based on good intentions.

Nobody shot down education.

Someone did, saying that in this case it was better to sign everyone up and tell them later.

[anjinha]

So, the answer is to force them into it?

No one's forcing anyone to do it, they can easily opt-out.

[r.j.s]

No one's forcing anyone to do it, they can easily opt-out.

If they are not presented the choice, then they are forced into it. Why is anybody automatically entitled to another's organs?

[.Andy]

So, the answer is to force them into it?
You'll have to explain how anyone is forced into anything by an opt out system. You are free to opt out as you wish at your whim.

Not hyperbole
On the contrary. This is all hyperbole;
Are we just organ farmers for others?
And if that is the case, why don't we create legislation that mandates everyone be cremated to save space in cemeteries, unless they opt-out of course?
After they are all harvested from the farms the government has allowed us to maintain over the years, of course.
Yes, people are selfish ... that doesn't mean government should be given the power to control their life or death because of it.
There's no real argument presented there at all and you've been rebutted accordingly.
just speaking from my experience in dealing with the way the USG has handled things that are based on good intentions.
Then you could opt-out.

Someone did, saying that in this case it was better to sign everyone up and tell them later.
Quote them then. Or did "they" say that an opt out system would be more productive than education alone?

If they are not presented the choice, then they are forced into it.
They are presented the choice though.

Why is anybody automatically entitled to another's organs?
You're not entitled to other people's organs. You can have them if you qualify medically and the other person has made no indication it is not their wish to donate them.

[anjinha]

If they are not presented the choice, then they are forced into it. Why is anybody automatically entitled to another's organs?

According to your logic in an opt-in system people are forced to NOT donate organs. The main difference between the two systems is that in an opt-out system more lives are saved.

[r.j.s]

According to your logic in an opt-in system people are forced to NOT donate organs. The main difference between the two systems is that in an opt-out system more lives are saved.

How can you force someone's decision through inaction? By that logic, I am forced to be a nonsmoker, since I wasn't born a smoker.

[.Andy]

How can you force someone's decision through inaction?
Good grief. Can't you see this counters your own "forced into" argument?

[r.j.s]

Re: Legislation over education:
Generally I would agree with that statement, but not this time.

They are presented the choice though.

When?


You're not entitled to other people's organs. You can have them if you qualify medically and the other person has made no indication it is not their wish to donate them.

If I have been signed up as an organ donor through a compulsory system, and I die in a way that makes my organs still viable, then someone is entitled to them.

BTW, how would this legislation let people know that they are donors?

[r.j.s]

Good grief. Can't you see this counters your own "forced into" argument?

You're right, every decision and non-decision forces something on someone ...

[.Andy]

When?
Whenever they chose to opt-out. Any time that they are alive.

If I have been signed up as an organ donor through a compulsory system, and I die in a way that makes my organs still viable, then someone is entitled to them.
Unless you opt out. You keep on forgetting that part which is completely at your whim.

BTW, how would this legislation let people know that they are donors?
This wouldn't be a particularly hard thing to overcome. The media? A letter? It wouldn't be hard to spread such medical information. The system could even include such a safeguard that even if there was no written objection the next of kin could convey one's wishes or make the decision themselves.

[skunk]

If I have been signed up as an organ donor through a compulsory systemIt would NOT be compulsory, it would remain voluntary.

BTW, how would this legislation let people know that they are donors?Very simple: on your application for a Driver's Licence, Social Security card or whatever other piece of official ID you get over there, there would be a check-box to to tick if you do NOT want to donate. Hardly rocket science, Einstein.

[SLC Flyfishing]

This wouldn't be a particularly hard thing to overcome. The media? A letter? It wouldn't be hard to spread such medical information. The system could even include such a safeguard that even if there was no written objection the next of kin could convey one's wishes or make the decision themselves.

It would be equally easy for an opt in system to gather donors in the same manner. The media, opt in forms mailed to each and every person at their 18th birthday and every time they do their taxes or renew their driving license etc.

I don't know how there would be much difference, and the more I think about it, I think this is the most "ethical" decision, ensuring that if someone didn't want to have their organs harvested, they wouldn't be. The other way gives too many chances at a mistaken harvest, or that somebody wasn't able to opt out before they died etc.

As a hypothetical: say I fill out the form to opt out of the donation system, seal it in an envelope and drop it in the mail at the post office. Then on the way home I am killed in a car accident, and because my opt out form hasn't been received, my organs are harvested against my personal wishes.

I really think that the opt-in system is better, I've been a donor since age 16, when I was licensed to drive. I don't personally know anyone else who isn't, save my wife's parents (who's organs would likely be unsuitable for transplant anyway).

When my father died, his body was a goldmine for transplant recipients. Everything but the heart was used (he had a massive heart attack).

SLC

[Cromulent]

Were this to happen, people might think they are entitled to organs because donation is compulsory.

Err, people are entitled to organ transplants.

[No1451]

Can anyone explain to me WHY they wouldn't want to be a donor? First thing I did when I got my license was become a donor and inform my parents that under no circumstances are they permitted to remove me from the donor list.

A dead person has no need for their body, if you are spiritual/religious then you are in heaven/reincarnated/nirvana or whatever your afterlife is. Point is that a body is a lot like a car, if you are no longer able to drive you just don't need it.

Please, someone explain WHY they wouldn't want to be a donor.

[skunk]

Err, people are entitled to organ transplants.Are they?

[r.j.s]

Err, people are entitled to organ transplants.

Are they?

Yes, are they?

[Cromulent]

Are they?

Yes, are they?

Of course. Why wouldn't they be?

As far as I am aware there is no law limiting the people who can receive an organ transplant (except for medical reasons) thus they have an entitlement to an organ if they need one.

[Iscariot]

While I'm fairly certain I will perish in a horrific way that will destroy most of my organs, I've provisionally donated my remains should they be needed for a reanimation or super-soldier project.

However, I've left my lungs to .Andy, because he's already taken my breath away.

[r.j.s]

Of course. Why wouldn't they be?

Entitled means that somebody has an obligation to provide you one. Nobody is ever obligated to provide anybody else with an organ.

[skunk]

Entitled means that somebody has an obligation to provide you one. Nobody is ever obligated to provide anybody else with an organ.100% in agreement. You cannot have title to someone else's organs.

[Cromulent]

Entitled means that somebody has an obligation to provide you one. Nobody is ever obligated to provide anybody else with an organ.

No it doesn't.

entitle |enˈtītl|
verb [ trans. ] (usu. be entitled)
1 give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something : employees are normally entitled to severance pay | [ trans. ] the landlord is entitled to require references.

[r.j.s]

a just claim to receive

And how exactly do you justify this claim or legal right over someone else's body?

[chrmjenkins]

No it doesn't.

entitle |enˈtītl|
verb [ trans. ] (usu. be entitled)
1 give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something : employees are normally entitled to severance pay | [ trans. ] the landlord is entitled to require references.

I am in agreement, although the statement needs qualification.

Provided you are deemed a good candidate for transplant, you are entitled to an organ, where one is available. That is to say that this language prevents you from being ruled out of consideration without good cause.

And how exactly do you justify this claim or legal right over someone else's body?

It's not a right over their body, it's a right to be part of the system that provides organs. If my liver goes bad and I am deemed a good candidate for transplant, I am entitled to AN organ, if one is available. In other words, they can't arbitrarily deny me an organ if one is available. The rights don't extend to domain over someone else's body directly. This is if I'm interpreting Cromulent's intent properly.

[Cromulent]

And how exactly do you justify this claim or legal right over someone else's body?

Rather than answering that question I will ask the reverse, how can you justify the legal right to withhold an organ from a corpse that could potentially save a persons life?

Really, I have no idea how you possibly could.

[r.j.s]

Rather than answering that question I will ask the reverse, how can you justify the legal right to withhold an organ from a corpse that could potentially save a persons life?

Really, I have no idea how you possibly could.

Let me clear something up, yes, you're entitled to consideration for organ transplant.

You are not entitled to demand an organ be made available to you.

[Cromulent]

You are not entitled to demand an organ be made available to you.

Where did I say you were able to demand an organ? I didn't.

[r.j.s]

Here:

Err, people are entitled to organ transplants.

[Cromulent]

Here:

No I said people were entitled to one. I then later posted the dictionary definition which states that entitlement means:

a just claim to receive something.

[r.j.s]

No I said people were entitled to one. I then later posted the dictionary definition which states that entitlement means:

a just claim to receive something.

I'm not going to argue semantics with you. The wording you used means you are entitled to the transplant, and therefore an organ. You're not, at least in the US (I can't speak for other countries), you're entitled to consideration.

[Cromulent]

I'm not going to argue semantics with you. The wording you used means you are entitled to the transplant, and therefore an organ. You're not, at least in the US (I can't speak for other countries), you're entitled to consideration.

So you are stating you don't have a just claim to receive a transplant if you need one then? Interesting.

[r.j.s]

So you are stating you don't have a just claim to receive a transplant if you need one then? Interesting.

No, you don't. You are considered for one. If you are an alcoholic, and need a liver, what doctor/transplant board is going to give you one?

[skunk]

So you are stating you don't have a just claim to receive a transplant if you need one then? Interesting.Your use of the term "entitled" is misleading. If you are considered by the relevant medical experts to be a suitable recipient, and if there is a suitable organ available, you are entitled to be put on a list for transplant, at least in this country.

[chrmjenkins]

Your use of the term "entitled" is misleading. If you are considered by the relevant medical experts to be a suitable recipient, and if there is a suitable organ available, you are entitled to be put on a list for transplant, at least in this country.

I think this stems from the differing connotations and denotations of the word. In most cases, one does have a just claim to receive, and we seek to disqualify them based on age, change of survival or other detrimental factors. The opposing line of thought would make it appear we are making the person justify their worth. Inherently, all are worthy to continue their lives if they have the will to do so.

Still, I think it's an interpretation difference and not an actual functional difference here.

[skunk]

I think it's an interpretation difference and not an actual functional difference here.Perhaps, but in a field where demand far outstrips supply, the subject is laden with emotion and the costs are enormous, it serves no useful purpose to give a simplistic and politicised rendering of the process.

I still believe that an opt out would be better than an opt in to maximise the chances of supply catching up with demand.

[apsterling]

Please, someone explain WHY they wouldn't want to be a donor.

I want the aliens to dig me up. :rolleyes:

In all honesty, as long as I'm not transplanting anything while I'm alive and well, then I've got no problem donating myself. So if that's how it works, as soon as I have option and am ready I believe I'll do it.

[Beerfloat]

I forgot, there are plenty of people that would like some bureaucrat telling them how they will live there lives and what they are allowed to do with their body. God, (oops, forgot I can't say that) forbid someone makes their own decisions rather than let some bureaucrat make a default choice. Is it really that hard to sign up? Hell, I'm signed up in two states.

I think the principle behind your concern is understood, but even if I accept your point of view that opt-out is an unacceptable breach of the integrity and ownership of your body by a government, that means exactly zilch to me when weighed against the loss of life and quality of life that comes with the severe shortage of donors.

Face it, we're all born into a society we didn't actually have a choice or hand in shaping ourselves. We should simply make the best of it.

[CorvusCamenarum]

No, you don't. You are considered for one. If you are an alcoholic, and need a liver, what doctor/transplant board is going to give you one?

My aunt died some years ago while waiting for a liver because she wouldn't give up smoking.

In my state they just ask you when you get/renew your driver's license and if you agree, you get a little tag on your license.

[r.j.s]

In my state they just ask you when you get/renew your driver's license and if you agree, you get a little tag on your license.

Right, that's how it is in PA as well (I think Texas too, but I'm not sure). My point is that the current opt-in system doesn't make it too hard to sign up, so if people really cared so much, they would sign up.

Education will do more to make people sign up, if the process is easy.

Without education, making it compulsory would only cause a flood of people to opt-out. Something like this would be big news, and with the stigma of the current myth - which I believe is fairly prevalent, it may do more harm for the system than good.

So, make it more widely known what the opt-in process is, and what conditions are needed for organs to be donated, and you'll have a lot more people signed up to be donors.

BTW, I wonder what the statistics are on people that die and are donors, but their organs are not viable, for whatever reason.

[r.j.s]

So if that's how it works, as soon as I have option and am ready I believe I'll do it.

Info here (http://www.azdonorregistry.org/)