Presumed consent in organ donation

"The cost for a Kidney or Pancreas is $115,000 U.S. The cost for a Heart, Lung, or Liver is $225,000 U.S. These costs include travel and all hospital fees, including the required organ, surgery, and medications needed for a successful organ transplant. The cost also includes travel and lodging for a friend, relative, or nurse, who accompanies the recipient, providing companionship and support during the transplant process. There are no additional costs. "

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...-aW9CQ&usg=AFQjCNF0hIqldURcYNuNnmaN2OfGWkQ8Vg

So everyone makes money on the organs EXCEPT the DONOR! Great system isn't it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yet one is free to "opt out" and let your organs rot in the ground if you so choose. So I don't see the problem.

I'm one of those who believe most of what you listed as problems with the "opt in" system. But, in my opinion, this is no less voluntary than the "opt in" system.

If you object to having your organs used after your death to save the lives of others, you simply opt out. In supporting "opt in" I'm certainly not saying anyone has a right to someone else's organs (even after their death).

What I'm saying is that most people simply never declare their intentions regarding organ donation because they believe themselves to be immortal, or because even thinking about such things is acknowledging their own mortality.

Why should fear of death be allowed to parodoxically result in more death. Let's just assume that most people are decent, reasonable people and will opt in. But let anyone who objects for whatever reason opt out.

I don't agree. Any remotely reasonable person knows that they themselves or one of their loved ones may well someday require an organ transplant. A basic sense of fairness should dictate that one should be willing to contribute to that which one may depend on someday. Especially when it costs one absolutely nothing.​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's a great idea! Kinda like making people who have unpopular ethnic/religious identities walk around a Star Of David on their clothing!

And, here in California, I DO walk around with a card declaring my organ donor status. It's on my driver's license.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That IS stupid. A person has a right to determine what is done with his or her body after death. For the state or some whiny descendent to hijack this person's wishes - and, in fact, their body - is horseshit.

And, once again, I'd like to say I oppose the "opt out" system. I don't oppose organ donation, but only the notion that ownership of one's body defaults to the state.

 

How about tax exemption for organ donors?

 

I am against. It goes against the very concept of consent. It is assumed that a persons vote is negative on ballot initiatives (for example) unless it is marked yes.

This is a contract with a separate, unnamed entity (the patient who will receive the organ via a hospital) from drivers licensure or the paperwork you sign for an ID card (when DL is not applicable). It should always be assumed the position is negative (it is a donation after all) unless otherwise indicated.

Your not supposed to have to say no to donations, you are supposed to give consent.

There are many reasons why people do not donate their organs, and because the majority choose not to, indicates the general preference is no.

 

I disagree. I think the general preference is to do nothing. To not bother filling out the card and to avoid talking about anything to do with your death. Then the decision goes to your grieving relatives who are hardly able to make rational decisions in such a circumstance.

 

Hi Milkweed...

Would you not agree that many of the "majority" make their choices based on remnants of religious imprinting? IOW, what is your opinion on the affect of education, specifically secular education? Does anyone know of any correlation between organ-donors and education or secularism? (Either direct or inverse?)

Aside from the general concept of "master of my own destiny", even after death, what dire consequences do you foresee stemming from an "opt-out" system?

After all, the results from countries experimenting with this system appear mixed at best, with an apparent upswing of donations in those nations utilizing the "opt-out" method:
Opt-in vs. opt-out

If one is to believe the apparent trend towards more donations per-capita in "opt-out" states, presumably leading to more lives saved, how do we balance the two dissenting points of view?

Personally, if it weren't for the superstitious myths surrounding the subject, plus its general "creepiness", I would think "opt-out" would be the obvious solution. Frankly, I'm somewhat surprised at your disagreement - especially if it is mostly based on some sort of "herd mentality" where the majority seem to head one direction - simply because the popular weather-vane blows in a certain way. Not saying that this is the case, merely requesting clarification....

 

Paradigm shift

People had a problem with having to opt out of telephone surveys.

The underlying problem is one of implementation in consideration of people's traditional assertions of rights. An opt-out system for organ donation would mark a tremendous paradigm shift. While I personally don't object, I foresee tremendous complications in the transition. I object formally, and not personally; I don't see the program as feasible right now. My sense of where the American public is at does not support the idea that such a program will be accepted. To wit:

The latter is a curiosity to me, because it makes all the difference in the world. Some things you would deny others while you are alive—e.g., basic necessities—because it might cost you something in taxes. But when you're dead, and it costs you nothing?

Setting that aside, however, this comes back to the idea of the boundaries of ownership. I'm currently wrestling with nicotine. My desire to quit is personal. I want to be done with it. I don't want to kill myself any more than I have by this stuff. But I also drink alcohol, smoke pot, and eat things like bacon, or steak with peppercorn sauce, fried potatoes, cheese, foods with high fructose corn syrup (another habit I wish to break), and so on. I prefer butter to "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter". At what point, under the paradigm shift that would occur with an opt-out system, are people expected to presume the duty of keeping themselves healthy for the sake of others after they are dead?

Now, yes, there are plenty of principles to consider there, but here's the key: Can you sell it?

Can you convince people to give up their booze, cigarette, recreational drugs, bacon, cheese puffs, and cherry-flavored Kool Aid for the sake of others in the event that one might die prematurely and leave harvestable organs behind?

This is the major challenge I foresee. And like other ideas I support—e.g., Communism—I simply don't think people are intellectually or psychologically prepared for a paradigm shift of that degree. This is one of those changes that must come about organically, evolve naturally in the conscience. Trying to institute this from the top down means a huge political sales job. Regardless of the legitimacy of that pitch, do you think it will be an easy sale?

I expect it will be a frenetic mess. Now is the time to start changing people's outlooks, but it is not the time to institute such a dramatic shift as a matter of public policy.

 

I think I disagree somewhat here: New York State residents seem to support it based on the OP, but then again are reticient about checking off the box on the form. Maybe they simply need a strong hand and a reminder about logic and humanitarianism.

 

I hope you're right

It seems that what they support is the idea of organ donation itself, not an opt-out system that will eventually be decried as "mandatory".

To the other, I sincerely hope you're right. And to that end, a long-term PSA advertising effort probably couldn't hurt, as long as it's done right.

 

Quite so. "Put your heart where your mouth is" strikes me as not a bad slogan.

 

Because you never know when ....

Especially if they bought or borrowed the footage from A Fish Called Wanda where the old lady finally dies.

 

How about Larry Niven (SciFi writer) and his system?
He tells stories of a time in human development when organ transplants solve most ageing diseases, and organs are in enormous demand. The solution is to apply the death penalty to most crimes, from drunk driving up, and cut up the offenders for spare parts.

 

Gee, thanks ....

Nothing like reinforcing people's fears about organ donation.

 

Or perhaps the clip about liver donation from The Meaning of Life.

 

Surprise!

There was a color version of The Twilight Zone in the 1980s, and one of the episodes featured an actor I used to see in everything but whose name I can't recall ....

Anyway, he played a high-power executive who chain smoked, ate poorly, and all that. One day government agents in dark suits show up and arrest him, whisking him out to a dark car without any explanations. They drive a circuitous route across town and take him into a building that turns out to be a hotel. The man is struggling and objecting and stressing out the whole way. They get him to the safe house for interrogation, which turns out to be a surprise birthday party put on by his family and friends, at which point he falls over dead of a heart attack.

Or something like that.

Maybe do a compressed version of that script and buy a preview slot at the cinema.

 

While I see potential entertainment value here, and perhaps even a dire warning about a paradigm shift gone wild... I fail to see the relevancy to the current topic. If anything, you describe a world with no opt-in nor opt-out - other than leading a life completely free of all legal infractions. Do, please, tell me minor drug violations are off the books in Niven's work...

I do not think anyone is arguing that forcible organ harvesting is the way to go, in fact, I believe the "slippery slope" concept has already been addressed.

Regardless of whether society is "ready" for this paradigm shift (A legitimate question raised by Tiassa), I am more interested in the hypothetical.

If you remove the religious vestiges, what, really, is left as a legitimate argument against presumed consent? Do we still hold on to some remnants of spirituality in this realm - i.e. a person not buried, or otherwise processed "properly", will suffer some sort of disadvantage in the hereafter? For real?

So, society's degree of preparedness notwithstanding, couldn't a case be made whereby the "good of society" outweighs the preference of the individual? In this case, the individual still has the right to express their preferences. This opt-out practice seems a good candidate for progress in the right direction...

 

If that fails, then pick up the other Twilight Zone script where the overly strung businessman tries to give up smoking, and they cut off his wife's fingers when he won't stick to the schedule. Carrot and stick.

 

I was not suggesting we should follow Larry Niven's story line. Quite the contrary. However, it made for an interesting story theme.

Something else makes me wonder, though. If such a policy was implemented for enough generations, what impact would it have on human evolution?

If we so completely wipe out the criminal classes, are we breeding a naturally law abiding human? OK, I know this is off topic, but the idea interests me.