This is a great assumption. But has this proved to be true by any government, at any time, anywhere in the whole fucking world? If you get your hand burned on a hot plate 5,000 times, what makes you think that #5,001 will be any different? You and I know that the only thing this will spawn will be an alphabet government organization like MFON (My Fucking Organs Now), or YOAY (Your Organs Aren't Yours) that will somehow require 1% of the entire population to be employed at, and soak up roughly 10% of our entire budget each year. Give or take 2%. Not to mention the leveling of the Amazon Rainforest to provide for the paper for the 349 pages of forms you need to sign to get out, or the 3 weeks of counseling and work to verify and substantiate the form. The intervention is that you have to spend your time, to go out of your way for something you did not want in the first place.
The intervention is that you have to spend your time, to go out of your way for something you did not want in the first place.[/quote] Exactly. Just because the government isn't forcing you to donate your organs doesn't mean it's not intervening in society. Government is great at not forcing actions upon us, as this would cause an uproar, but passing legislation that makes it more difficult. When you're dealing with hundreds of millions of Americans, even the slightest obstacle will produce results.
Except when a wife is being a pain, she's called a bitch. When the government does it, it's called red tape. It's all fun and games until it's something you are concerned about, Ghettoastronaut. Like affirmative action at NASA.
Sorry guys, this a long one. This might draw me some flak, but I think this is the exact kind of situation why the opt-out system is good. If the person that died (assuming they're not a minor, in which case the decision would be their parents' anyway) didn't opt-out, then obviously they didn't care about where their organs went and thus didn't opt-out. I would think anyone that actually cares where their own organs go would know to opt-out. It doesn't matter that the family thinks this is bad, what matters is what the person that died thinks, and maybe they strayed from the family's religion that dislikes organ donation, and that's why they didn't opt-out. Unless nobody knows they're supposed to opt-out (which like I say, it's likely if someone is one of the few people that thinks it's important that their organs are not donated, they would know to opt-out), or they die on their way to fill out the opt-out form and ironically get their organs donated, I think it's extremely unlikely that someone who does not want to donate ends up donating. The people that currently don't opt-in but also wouldn't opt-out are all the organs we're missing out on, and I suspect that's quite a few. So you're telling me it's more insensitive for the grieving widow or whoever to see the consequences of their actions, than it is to deny possibly dozens of people better lives from the organs? Yeah, wheeling people in on gurneys was an exaggeration, but photos or something where the person sees the consequences of their actions? Also, in that post I was talking about someone who is normally for organ donation but changes their mind when it happens to be their loved one doing the donating. I'm afraid I can't agree. Ghettoastronaut hit me right on the nose: (Ghetto: I'm guy.) Why in the world would it spawn any more bureaucracy than there is now? Right now you have to opt-in at reasonable places that people have mentioned, like on your driver's license, why would opting-out be any different? If you really care that your organs do not get donated, I don't think it's too much to ask that you do something so simple. People that think it's important that their bodies are not kept alive after brain death are able to fill out Do Not Resuscitate orders, I don't think opting out of organ donation would be much more difficult.
Flip it around. What would happen if you had to opt for a "Resuscitate" form and the default was to pull the plug? It's not about the choice, it's about the default right to begin with.
As with most things government does, the intentions are good, but they use some shady means to get there. I'm not sure how it's done in Canada, but here in the States there is a box that you either check or don't check when you renew your drivers license every couple years. Pretty fucking simple. And everyone who gets a drivers license (or ID card if they don't drive) has the option to check that box or not. Some people are comfortable doing that, and others aren't, for whatever reasons. The bottom line is that some people with power don't like the choices that the people they have power over are making. So they resort to forcing people to make the "right" decision by default, and they have to dick around with paperwork (or whatever hoops you have to jump through) to make the "wrong" decision. True, one could opt-out and nobody is technically forcing anybody to do anything. Just people with power not liking the choices people make, and passing legislation to try to change that ("Because we know what's best for you"). I checked the donor box. I see no reason why anybody would not be willing to donate their organs after they die. But, obviously, some people aren't comfortable with that. If you want to persuade more people to check the donor box, why not give them a tax credit, or one time check for a few hundred dollars, or any number of things that are less "intrusive" than passing a law that has the government essentially make a decision for you. And before I get flamed on here, I'll just add that this isn't a very big deal to me. There are plenty of things to get all bent out of shape about and this law would be very low on my list. I'm just throwing my opinion out there.
So, basically, government control of anything is bad? Or is it that government control of anything not expressly mentioned in the founding documents is bad? If I adopt your hot plate analogy, I'd say that a democratic government gives you 3000 warm meals and 2000 burns, less than 1000 of which are serious. Really? Do you take all your information from Glenn Beck, or just some of it? Odds are the government organization in charge of organ distribution would fall under Health and Human Services, which took 2.30% of the budget last yearHere's the link. That number won't likely change much. Have you heard of this thing called computers? It allows you to take care of many things without needing a physical representation. Sure, you need a few things on paper, especially things that need signatures or to be notarized, but most stuff can be handled electronically, using far less resources than a paper-based system. So, the Amazon will still be leveled for cattle land, but you won't have to deal with any teak or mahogany or (other tropical wood better suited for furniture) paper. Actually, you probably aren't dealing with that now, quick-growing softwoods are best for paper production, pine's the best option. Dude, what amount of time? Checking a box or signing a line takes that much time? Being opted out of that "giving high school student's info to recruiters" took about a second, this shouldn't take much longer. If you're alive, your rights are significantly different than if you are dead.
My point there was simply that people with different preferences than the default can easily fill out paperwork. I'm not saying the default should be different with DNRs, especially since in that case your life is at stake, not just your body after you're gone.
You just made an argument that a) the government is making you jump through hoops if you want to donate, and b) checking a box on a form you would have been filling out anyway consists of jumping through hoops. And, by the way, it seems the current system has far more paperwork and hoops to jump through than any new proposed system. Under the current one, a person seemingly needs to indicate on all available legal documents (will, driver's license, etc) that they want to be an organ donor. They have to talk to their families so they know what's going on. And, despite all this, when you die, your next-of-kin still have to go through the whole damned process again, signing plenty of forms and all that shit to actually give consent. And, of course, the next of kin can disagree with you and veto what you wanted to do with your own organs. This adds plenty of complexity and requires hospitals to have extra employees who are trained in dealing with people in extreme grief to start signing legal paperwork to consent to organ donation. But I assume that doesn't count as government intervention, even though hospitals are operating within a legislative framework.
Again, I don't care if it's a check mark or a full backgrond check. It's your organs, it's your life, it's a right. Yes, a check mark would take two seconds. But it significantly reverses your alienable rights. Today it's a check mark, tomorrow it's a form. Once you give up your basic human rights (which is what you're doing when you're opting out of organ donation as opposed to opting for it) going from a checkmark to needing an approved reason for withholding organs doesn't seem such a big step.
And what if your next of kin go against your wishes and veto your consent to have your organs donated? Because that's what happens today, and it seems just as bad for someone's wishes to go unfulfilled and not have their organs harvested (uh, donated) as it is the other way round.
I'm not sure how the current system works. If it's more complicated than "I signed a paper saying I want to donate, and when I die my organs will be donated" then it's more complicated than it should be. If next of kin can veto my decision on that matter, then it's fucked up. If I need to sign multiple pieces of paper to be a donor, then it's fucked up. If under this new plan, all I need to do is check an opt-out box when I renew my license, then that's fucking wonderful. Seriously, it's not a big deal. My main issue with this is that some people in government don't like the decisions that citizens make. Decisions that aren't harming anyone*. So they change the law and just make the decision they want and think is morally right to be the default one. I'm not a fan of that kind of legislating, even if they end up doing what I think people should do too. *Yes yes yes, it harms people indirectly. So does my use of electricity to run my computer right now. And my decision not to volunteer at the homeless shelter at the moment.
Israel does exactly this and from what I've read it works pretty well. Kind of funny that the two countries with the best systems in handling organs are Israel and Iran(which has a market). I'm going to stay out of this debate since my position on it is rather extreme in that I believe everyone should be forced to donate organs. That would derail the thread too much.
I think I misrepresented my hypothetical. I mean to imply that the deceased, being of the same general ilk as his relatives, would also have preferred to opt out, but, for whatever reason, did not. Consider this the opposite of someone today who, all else equal, would have preferred to opt in, but for whatever reason (laziness and lack of awareness chief among them, no doubt), did not. Basically, what I meant to ask was, between the two aforementioned situations, which is the lesser of two evils? I have no doubt we will still find ourselves on opposite sides of the issue, just thought I'd clarify. Here are my thoughts in a nutshell: As much as I know there is need for organs, I think shaping the problem in those terms will lead you down a very slippery slope. There are a multitude of markets where demand exceeds supply, both in the medical world and elsewhere. The simple existence of such a market imperfection does not mean a central planner should enter the fray and legislate a solution. Many of you have made the argument that the rights or needs of the living supersede that of the dead. But no one has made a cogent argument why the rights of the recipient should supersede those of the family? Yes, obviously there is need, that goes without saying. But does the family have no right to the body at all? And how do you weigh one versus the other? Can you?
Well, from Wiki... The article on organ donation goes on to list some donation rates for various countries with opt-in and opt-out policies: Opt-out: Spain: 34 per 1,000,000 inhabitants Austria: 21 Sweden: 15 Israel: 8 Opt-in: Germany: 16 Greece: 6 Funny thing about Israel; I was under the impression that Judaism, or the more orthodox varieties at least, opposed organ donation. As it happens, they don't, although the orthodoxy insists that it only occur "after death", i.e. after irreversible stop of the heart's beating. Which, of course, makes various organs unviable for transplantation. And yet, it seems a large number of people opt out of organ donation. I'd sure like to hear an explanation for that. Funnily enough, in Israel, your application for an abortion has to be approved by a committee. Look, I definitely agree with you that legislation how people "should" behave is stupid and wrong, in terms of both general principle and practicality. But what if the system were opt-out and the country were run by a bunch of kooks who insist on maintaining the purity of your bodily fluids and wanted to reduce the rates of organ transplantation by switching to an opt-in system? Would you be making the same argument in favour of the opposite stance? And on what basis do you say that having to opt in to a system doesn't violate human rights but having to opt out does? I think part of this debate hs something to do with the supernatural basis of peoples' objections to organ donation that makes it somehow seem worse if their organs are donated and their beliefs violated, rather than having someone's beliefs violated by not donating their organs. Judging by the fact that donation rates vary wildly between opt out and opt in systems, it seems more important that an organ donation scheme preserve the choice of the individual and allow plenty of opportunities without any obstacles to record those choices, than to have an opt-in / opt-out scheme. Okay there, point out where rights are being negated. Find me a legal basis for it. Go to Amnesty International, go to the Constitution, whatever - point out where a right is being violated by maintaining an opt-out system that is as (theoretically) barrier free as checking a box on your driver's license form. How about this: I am an adult with the rights and responsibilites entailing that auspicious state. I also have a will (this is the last part of this paragraph that is true), that directs my belongings to people and organizations. It is completely up to spec legally. Let's say I've decided to donate $5,000 to my alma mater, but my family never liked that school. I want to give enough money to my buddies to pay off their school debt, but my parents thought they were a bunch of lousy drunkards. I want to give a family heirloom that I legally inherited to my filthy Protestant whore of a wife. Is my family just allowed to rip up my will and reallocate these funds and possessions as seen fit? So why would it be any different when I have decided through proper legal channels that my organs may be used (or not used) as I have seen fit by medical authorities I deem fit to oversee that process?
Ok, if we're Wikipedia'n this bitch According to the World Medical Association, non-consensual dissection of corpses is a form of body snatching which is illegal by federal law according to Wikipedia.
Well, aside from the fact that anything that ends in "medical association" is just a lobbying group, an opt out system provides for implied consent and the ability to freely withdraw that consent at any time. So what's non-consensual about it? I should also point out - in a rep, you equivocated between your next of kin violating your rights and your government violating your rights. I think you're missing the point that government framework allows for your next of kin to overrule your wishes (seemingly, only in one direction) with regards to organ donation. And if the argument is going to be made that checking a box you were already checking on a form you were going to fill out anyway is constituted as government intervention... well, you can see where I'm going with that.