Organ Donation via Presumed Consent

You clearly glossed over my post and probably didn't watch the video because number one, you missed my point, and number two, that very post counterargues your point about education, public awareness, and essentially begging people to opt in. Check that whole 28% thing, it's documented and it's from real life data.

I never said "People are irrational, they should stop doing that." what I said was "People are irrational, Predictably so, it's just how we are. This is why we are in this situation and this is what we have to consider"

If people were hard line against donating their organs they wouldn't be nearly as heavily swayed by just going with the default option to avoid intimidating decision making, if there was really a heavy personal preference one way or the other there would be no discrepancy between opt in and opt out systems because exactly the same number of people would indicate "no" (or fail to indicate "yes") in either case.

But this is not the case. In either opt in or opt out systems there are the same number of hard line organ donors, and the same number of hard line don't-touch-me people as in all other populations, and they make the same decision in either situation, but both of these sects are tiny percentages of the population. What we're losing here is the massively overwhelming percentage of the population that says "well I wouldn't really mind, but it's such a tough decision to make. I...don't know...I don't want to think about it." and so they leave it blank going with whatever the default option is regardless of whether it is to donate or not. The fact that they go with whatever the default option is, even if it is to donate, means they really don't have anything against donation in the first place.

Come one, TVI, I know you're passionate about this, but try and shoot at your target instead of just where you assume your target to be. Study your prey before you take your shot.

 

All right, lets get back to basics for a second because I want to lay out the groundwork of my thoughts.

Organ donation is recycling, it is the exact same concept and every argument for the theoretical basis of recycling applies to organ donation. The only difference is that it is for a person and not an inanimate object, which is where the problem comes in. However:

• The person is in all cases either recently deceased or brain dead, and they are, from a perspective of sentience, as inanimate as the can you throw in the recycle bin.
• The act of recycling benefits the environment, resource availability, and reduces waste output which indirectly increase quality of life while organ donation directly and vastly increases quality of life and prevents death.
• Not donating your organs simply results in their decomposition or burning, there is no benefit to anyone, including the donor, by not donating.

Now, there are precisely two arguments that i can accept as reasonable reasons to dislike the idea.

• Religious preconceptions. I disagree, but recognize this as a completely valid line of reasoning.
• Sentimentality of family members. I recognize this as totally valid, but it is also just part of trouble letting go, but unlike other acts of sentimentality and difficulty moving on this one can actually cost the lives of others.

I recognize and sympathize, but the cost of inaction is measured in the death and suffering of innocents, and so while I understand these reasons to dislike the idea I don't think they are strong enough to justify the needless death of potentially a dozen people.

 

Not true my friend. Not sure if its been corrected but my entire family are JWs. Rots your brain, believe me. Anyway, these cats equate organ donation with cannibalism. They've begun to frown less upon it in recent years and call it a conscience matter but really and truly they will look at you as if you drown baby kittens and thoroughly feast on their souls should you go through with that parts swap.

 

No, it won't affect the trasplantee's life "forever". It will only benefit them for the X number of years before they die, just like how the death of a loved one pains the aggrieved for all the X number of years before they die, too. One isn't any more "temporary" than the other, believe me.

It's the exact same currency; satisfaction and happiness. And yes, I favor these emotions in my loved ones by a much greater margin over those of a normal human being than you would. That's neither right nor wrong. It's different for every human being.

Honestly, you're asking the same questions I already answered before, but yes, I'm happy I didn't donate my family members' organs. The psychological shock would have been much worse for myself and the rest of the family if we had done that. And it would be no fleeting thing; I still think and flash back to what my father looked like in the emergency room, or the events that transpired when I wasn't there. I do this every day, and if his organs were donated, I would have an even more cruel and bitter thing to reflect upon now, let alone my feelings back then.

EVERYTHING is "temporary". Your life is not "forever", it it "temporary", too. Even the length of time is comparable; I will carry these emotions and any regret I have for the next 40+ years I'm alive. The person receiving the donation will gain the benefits from that for however long they are alive. It's certainly not equal, but then again, neither is my relative concern for each one.

All this means is that you care more about a common person in relation to your loved ones than I do. Fine. Why do you think this is the only valuation out there?

 

In a word, no. Normally I agree with you quite a bit VI, but you seem to be quite disingenuous on this. This is already legislated on tremendously. If there was no legislation on it, I'd be able to sell my organs, which personally I think would be fantastic. While I'm alive, I could sell my extra, or I could sell the rights to my organs upon my death, and get the money up front, or I could will my organs to be sold and have the money go to my family. Or I could choose to keep them. Right now, I can't sell them whatsoever because of legislation, but this legislation hasn't somehow slippery sloped from "no selling of organs" to "no transfer of organs" at all. Regardless of your view on whether it should be opt-in or opt-out, under the current system a change from one to the other would not be as drastic as you seem to think it would be. It simply changes the default value.

And expanding on this a bit, and this isn't necessarily directed at you VI, earlier someone mentioned how if I'd prefer my organs be donated but they are not, how is that not trampling my rights just as much as the horrible prospect of having my organs donated when I didn't want them to be? They're both violating what I wanted done with my body. There's no "safe" option as far as I'm concerned when it comes to this. How is the option of not fucking with the dead guy's organs any safer than the opposite? He'll never know what happened to him either way and won't actually be losing or gaining anything other than whether his preferences were followed or not, which can be violated in both directions.

This legislation just changes what the government assumes people want done with their bodies, which based on this thread, the preference seems to be okay with organ donation personally, just not with this law change. Why is changing the default closer to most people's actual preference bad?

I already lost my right to make any choice since I can't sell. Organ donation is very hard to compare with other rights because you're dead when it happens. You might normally say that opt-out for organs is akin to changing default policy to being lobotomized, unless you opt-out, but that's not at all similar as far as I'm concerned. Something while your alive will obviously affect you, but having your organs donated isn't going to change you from "dead" to "really dead."

That having been said, it seems to me that figuring out what rights you personally have over what happens to your dead body is a somewhat open question. Grave robbing and necrophilia are illegal (right?), but I don't think it's because it violates your rights, it just happens to be a crime, so that's more a liberty, not a right. I think I should be able to say what happens to my body after I die, but right now my next of kin can overturn that decision and do whatever they want with me, which I think is bad, but based on some of your posts you seem okay with in case you change your mind at the last minute. If the decision of what happens to me resides with others and not with me, how is that actually one of my rights?

 

Sorry for the double posts, I didn't think it prudent to have two long responses to two different people in the same post..

I suppose I'll be more careful with my choice of terms next time. Replace every time I said "forever" with "for the rest of their lives." That is the point I am making.

No shit. Clearly, despite all my arguments about organs rotting in the ground when they are undonated, I must firmly believe that when people receive donated organs they will live for all eternity. Jesus.

While that's understandable, and I will admit I've never lost any family members close enough to me to experience something like that, would none of those bad feelings be offset by the fact that you can help out so many others?

I certainly understand why people might do this. I understand that it can be difficult to do some things, certainly including imagining someone you love cut up. But despite understanding why people do it, I can't grasp why you can do it and believe it to be the right thing to do. Perhaps that is the nature of morality, in that I will never understand why some religions believe certain things are wrong, while I believe they are okay.

And to say that I care more about a common person than my loved ones is, at best, inaccurate, and at worst, an insult (even if unintended). It's just that I loved the actual person who has died. I didn't love simply their body and their organs. Keeping their organs around certainly won't bring them back, and if someone else can live a substantially better life because of my loved one's death, I think that is the absolute best possible outcome of the situation.

 

I'm going to start a petition wherein all your worldly possessions will be given to the poor unless you check a box on your driver's license because it's best for everyone!!!!!! It only takes a minute to check the box!



If you don't understand how stupid this is, I'm done.

 

I feel like I'm posting way too much, but fuck it.

Yeah, that is stupid. Too bad it has little to do with organ donation. You know why? Because like I said earlier, I can't sell my organs and will the money to my family. I can will all my worldly possessions to my family however, or to whoever I see fit. Do you plan on giving your dead body to your family and having them use it for anything worthwhile (disregarding any emotional attachment, I'm talking actually use it)? Unless one of them has a disease where they need an organ from you, they won't be using it for anything other than filling a space in a graveyard, which is the exact opposite of what they'll do with all your worldly possessions when they inherit those. Possessions can be put to use. Recently deceased people can as well, but unless your family is able to sell it for the organs, they're going to get infinitely less use out of it than the rest of society can. Your estate and your body are not comparable in this instance.

(Not to be grotesque and insensitive, but when the comparison is between organ donation and worldly possessions, it already takes the emotional aspect out of the equation.

 

So it's only yours if you plan on using it?

What if I plan on being buried with all my gold bullion?

I didn't know there was a "use it or lose it" clause.

 

Common law basically does have a "use it or lose it" aspect, it's called "squatter's rights", and similar aspects of different agreements like the Homestead Act required a certain amount of improvement (use) of the land or you would forfeit (lose) the land. This isn't applying to organs, but you seem to have moved onto the analogy of property. If you plan on being buried with your gold bullion, your relatives/those named in your will can petition to have your wishes overturned and loot your corpse, provided the judge goes along with them. Odds are they'll just choose not to bury you with your gold, instead of trying to rip your body out of the ground and melt down your sarcophagus. Best solution for keeping your gold with you in the next life? Get enough gold to melt in a large vat, then jump in. That or get a bunch of slaves to build a bigass mausoleum, and seal yourself and your wealth within it upon interment. Remember, Jews make the best construction workers with proper whip-work!

 

Dude, you were comparing your dead body to your worldly possessions. That's exactly what happens to your estate if you have no next of kin and don't will it to anyone. The state will take it. It essentially is "use it or lose it" in that department. If you want to take all your worldly possessions with you when you die, by having it buried with you for example, you'd have to make some pretty elaborate preparations for when the time comes, and make sure it's all in writing, because yes, otherwise someone else will take it after you die. Similarly, in an opt-out system, if you don't want your organs taken by someone else, you will have to make similar (although ideally, not at all elaborate) preparations to make sure your wishes are carried out.

Edit: Or what Crazy Wold said.

 

Ok, we're making analogies of analogies and are so far off focus it's not even relative anymore.

I'm done.

 

If you die, by default - your shit goes through a bunch of legislated procedures, and ultimately does go to the public interest by way of the tax coffers if none of the default recipients can take possession. It's a long and time consuming process - but that's exactly what happens already if you don't have relatives willing and able to receive your assets or a will designating where they go.

The argument is that your transplantable organs should be treated as individual items - rather then your body being treated as a single item at the time of your death. Your relatives CANNOT own your organs. They can receive them in a medical procedure - but organ trafficking laws prohibit your relatives from taking ownership of your kidneys and selling them. Or keeping them as a sentimental keepsake on a shelf in a jar full of preservatives that maintain their viability. Medical and Educational facilities get an exemption and can take ownership for research or transplants but other then that - once you're dead - your rights to your body are already heavily limited. Your family can't take your cadaver to a football game. They can't keep it in the living room to enjoy the smell of your decay. They can't sell it to a rich guy with a matching blood type. It's not comparable to your wedding ring or your watch or your antique dresser.

Fundamentally, your family can't own your body as long as any part of it remains viable for transplant. They can own your ashes. They can retain authority over your suitably disinfected, preserved and interred remains. They can own the chunk of land that your non viable remains are stored in. They can chose from a very small list of ways in which your organs can be made non viable. The idea that you, or your inheritors have any kind of inalienable rights to your body is based on at best, a misunderstanding of the vast swathes of existing legislation surrounding your body post mortem.

The thing is, at the moment - we differentiate a body as a whole, from a collection of organs. We wouldn't say to the family at the time of death 'Sure, Phil's heart goes to Mary and Phil's Penis goes to Suzy and Phil's Brain goes to little Mikey. If we had a collection of viable organs in a transport boxes in the hospital - there's wouldn't be an argument. But we're attached to this notion that the sack of meat as a whole is different from the sack of meat divided up into a bunch of neat boxes.

Fundamentally, I know that my views on the topic are different from most peoples. I think Burial and maintenance of burial grounds should be taxed at a a fantastically high rate. If you want to consume a chunk of land for as long as the culture living around that land respects burial grounds - I think you should have to be rich enough that you could have done that anyway. If you aren't going to let anybody else have your meat when you're done with it - either stick it in a nice tidy mantle jar that can go into a landfill or get scattered over the ocean or something, or get shelf 2194A in a warehouse. Graveyards are a stupid and primitive waste.

Fundamentally, your meat stops being yours when your consciousness stops inhabiting it. We've already got a bunch of legislation that restricts what your family can and can't do with it. I don't see the problem with changing the defaults about what happens if you don't care. I mean sure, anybody who doesn't renew their drivers license or passport doesn't have to make the choice and anybody who can't be identified as having chosen not to opt-out should be treated under the existing assumptions. But changing the way default conditions are handled shouldn't actually make that much of a difference to anyone who's got concerns more immediate then killing time on the intarwebs.

That said - Cloning still seems like the vastly more sensible option to me.

 

True story. Apparently, if my last will and testament requires my executor to rent a yacht for the day, stock it with vodka and stinger missiles and my loved ones, take it a mile offshore, and then launch a speedboat loaded with explosives and my corpse at said yacht while a recording of my voice encourages said loved ones to fire said missiles at said speedboat with a quickness lest they all be annihilated, there would be unpleasant legal ramifications.

This is not the America I was promised.

 

They are, it's called an estate tax and it ranges from 18-55%.

 

And what point is that? Yes, I have a choice between positively affecting my loved ones "for the rest of their lives" and benefiting some strangers "for the rest of their lives".

You are still confused by this, and ask me how I can favor my loved ones so strongly when given the choice. Honestly, I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer than I already have.

No, no they wouldn't.

I never said anything was "right" or "wrong". You did. These concepts are irrelevant to this discussion, and only serve to drag it into more juvenile, simplistic terms.

If you want to argue that I am selfishly favoring the happiness of my family members over a bunch of strangers, fine. Just realize that for me, the level of charity and kindness that would make me willingly put my loved ones through additional pain, suffering, and horror is above the level of charity and kindness that would make me spend 10 years in the Salvation Army.

It's obviously different for you. That's understandable. I just don't get where you get off calling yourself right and me wrong, unless you're also willing to live a completely unselfish life for others, a la Mother Theresa.

I never wrote that all. Here's the actual quote;

"All this means is that you care more about a common person in relation to your loved ones than I do."

Of course you care more about your loved ones than a common person. However, you don't care so much more to where you would doom an unknown person to die 10 years sooner to limit the mental/psychological suffering of your loved ones. I would.

It's easy to type those words when it hasn't happened to you. It's not as easy when you see the hands and face of the person that has hugged, smiled, and loved you for your entire life, including just a few days ago, lying there, and someone asks if their body should be ripped apart and donated to medical science. It took many months for me to realize they were truly dead and never coming back. I'm not sure that I, let alone my mother or father's mother, could have handled that.

Then again, I also believe in burial, and can't fathom something like cremation. (And I'm agnostic)

Maybe it will be different for you, who knows? At any rate, this is my last post on the subject; hopefully, I've made my personal views clearer and more understandable to those that found them hard to relate to.

 

In economics, it's called pricing to manage demand. Much like cigarette taxation, the idea is to price it to a point where people will stop fucking doing it, and shut the fuck up about their inalienable rights - because nobody in the world has an assured right to things they want being cheaply available. The current price, no matter how high, is clearly not high enough if lots of people are still doing it. Increase it to 255%, add enough license and regulation costs to providers that it becomes fundamentally impractical. Pull numbers out of your ass until people stop wasting land storing formaldehyde, pine boxes and leather made out of people wearing makeup - and start doing shit differently.

The idea that the cost of land for the living is inflated by dead people consuming supply availability, effectively forever - is one of life's little oddities that makes no fucking sense to me.

 

I believe the term you're looking for is the sin tax.

And I didn't realize it was a sin to leave your body intact for any number of personal reasons.