Organs to be taken without consent

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

If you flip it around per your proposal, a huge number of people will be able to opt out easily. Some still won't.

Why won't some people be able to opt out? You still still still still still STILL haven't said why, and this isn't the first time I've asked.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[labrys 0]

Quote

Why won't some people be able to opt out? You still still still still still STILL haven't said why, and this isn't the first time I've asked.

You must have missed my post. Ever given a guy on a street corner who was clearly down on his luck a few bucks? How easy do you think it is for that guy to opt out? How easy would it be for the average nursing home resident? How easy for the homebound? How easy for someone with an illness that doesn't affect all their organs?

Owned by Remi #?

[Lindsey 0]

In Ohio, all you have to do is check a box on your drivers license or state ID application. How lazy do you have to be to fail to check a box? A huge percentage of people carry a driver's license or state ID. That makes it easy for them.

EXCEPT that even if a person has the box checked on his driver's license saying that he wants to donate his organs, a family member who doesn't want them donated can over-ride his decision.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[labrys 0]

Quote

EXCEPT that even if a person has the box checked on his driver's license saying that he wants to donate his organs, a family member who doesn't want them donated can over-ride his decision.

That doesn't have anything to do with allowing the state to make the decision. The OP suggests that family could over-ride the state as well. The arguement isn't about whether or not family has a say in the matter, it's about whether the government does.

Owned by Remi #?

[livendive 8]

Washington driver licensing is the same way, you elect each time you renew. I think the fuss about "rights" is a little odd. First wouldn't we have to resolve that dead hunks of meat have rights? I haven't seen that argument made.

I think the system sounds fine. It is assumed that people who can help others at no cost to themselves will do so, and that people would rather see a spare part save a human life rather than save a colony of bugs. Those "useless wastes of human skin" (to borrow a phrase from Royd) who would prefer that as many people as possible die along with them are free to elect as such.

The hospitals have to assume something when someone dies. Should they assume the person is or is not a donor? If they assume they are when they actually aren't, nobody is harmed and someone(s) may be helped. If they assume they aren't, when they actually intended to be, nobody is better off and someone(s) else may die as a result. Thus, the preferred assumption is a pretty simple matter.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

You must have missed my post.

I've just looked back through the entire thread and I can't see it.

Quote

How easy do you think it is for that guy to opt out?

If there's a form available in the local hospital or clinic front desk, pretty easy. If he's a complete official non-person then he'd come under the hypothetical John Doe exemption we've been discussing.

Quote

How easy would it be for the average nursing home resident?

Nursing home residents have carers.

Quote

How easy for the homebound?

If they can live from home, they can get a form in the post/ phone a number/ do it online.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[labrys 0]

Quote

If they can live from home, they can get a form in the post/ phone a number/ do it online.

I'm gonna guess that since you live in the UK you haven't seen some of the poorest areas of the US.

Maybe implied consent would work over there.

Owned by Remi #?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Why can't the gov't do that SAME media campaign now, to get the people
>to sign INTO the program rather than sign out?

Why do you have to do either one? Just ask them the question on driver's license forms (or pick your favorite form.) "Organ donor - yes or no. Check one box." Simple.

Exactly. No assumptions made either way and it is clear to all

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[labrys 0]

Quote

If they assume they are when they actually aren't, nobody is harmed and someone(s) may be helped.

While I agree with what you're saying 100%, I'm willing to concede that there are people out there who do believe they are harmed when their organs are removed and I believe that they have the right to keep them unless they give explicit permission.

Hell, some people save amputated limbs in freezers until they die so that they can be buried intact.

Owned by Remi #?

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

I'm gonna guess that since you live in the UK you haven't seen some of the poorest areas of the US.

How does poverty stop someone from getting a prepaid envelope into the postal system? If they're poor and homebound, they still obviously have some method for getting things from the wider world into their home, and vice verca.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[labrys 0]

Quote

Exactly. No assumptions made either way and it is clear to all

The topic of discussion is about what should be done in the absence of documentation. There's a yes box and a no box. What should be done if neither is checked?

Owned by Remi #?

[labrys 0]

Quote

If they're poor and homebound, they still obviously have some method for getting things from the wider world into their home, and vice verca.

And it isn't always easy and it isn't always free. I'm just trying to boil it down the the rock bottom. Costing anyone any effort or cost at all to retain the right to their own organs is wrong, IMO.

Owned by Remi #?

[VincentVL. 0]

Brilliant idea. Should already be the case.
People have to be informed of the option to opt out of the donation though. This should happen more than once too.

I think it's pretty selfish to opt out of donation, but if some religious type should want to they still can. When you have to request a donation card, lots of people will forget to request one. Which means less organs for the needy.

I also strongly feel that this should be limited to use for transplant.

And if you want to discuss the topic please don't turn it into a what-if sci-fi story where zombie orphens are bred for their organs in dark Gothic basements.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

No more so than the status quo. A choice is being assumed at present, just as a choice will be assumed under the proposed system. All that has changed is the choice that is assumed - not whether or not one is assumed at all.

How well has "opt out" worked for email spam? In general, 'opt out' is a losing approach for the people. (noteable exception going in this year is with 401k enrollment - they don't lose money if they want to change after the first paycheck).

Organ harvesting is a time critical action. Couple that this with a presumption that the person is willing, and opt out will fail badly. Just as stupid is saying it's fine for someone to mail in a post card and presume that in 4-6 weeks it will properly be entered into the system.

What you're saying really is that you don't believe the dead have a right to their organs. The greater good is more important. That's an opinion that is a bit in conflict with the basic principles of our country.

If you're really worried about your dying wishes not being respected - then carry a dog tag (Road ID makes a good one) that indicates your donor status. Your 'right' is being maintained, without desecrating a bunch of bodies against their wishes.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

How well has "opt out" worked for email spam?

Is that the best you can do? Email spammers compared to the organ donation service? Weak.

Quote

Organ harvesting is a time critical action. Couple that this with a presumption that the person is willing, and opt out will fail badly.

Why?

Quote

What you're saying really is that you don't believe the dead have a right to their organs.

That is not an argument that I have used in this thread.

Honestly dude, you've written better posts.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,428]

>What should be done if neither is checked?

I'd say the same thing that happens if you refuse to write down your social security number, or address, or previous driver's licenses you have used.

[labrys 0]

Quote

I'd say the same thing that happens if you refuse to write down your social security number, or address, or previous driver's licenses you have used.

That was meant to be rhetorical.

Owned by Remi #?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I think the fuss about "rights" is a little odd. First wouldn't we have to resolve that dead hunks of meat have rights? I haven't seen that argument made.

I don't necessarily DISagree with you, but it has YET to be proven that the state *DOES* have any rights to "that dead hunk of meat" as well.

Quote

I think the system sounds fine. It is assumed that people who can help others at no cost to themselves will do so, and that people would rather see a spare part save a human life rather than save a colony of bugs. Those "useless wastes of human skin" (to borrow a phrase from Royd) who would prefer that as many people as possible die along with them are free to elect as such.

I don't see where the current system is broken. Those that wish to opt *in* can do so - those that do not have to do nothing.

Quote

The hospitals have to assume something when someone dies. Should they assume the person is or is not a donor? If they assume they are when they actually aren't, nobody is harmed and someone(s) may be helped. If they assume they aren't, when they actually intended to be, nobody is better off and someone(s) else may die as a result. Thus, the preferred assumption is a pretty simple matter.

Let's try a different tack:

Apply your argument to a DNR order. Should the hospitals assume that all patients brought in have opted for a DNR? Why or why not?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

How well has "opt out" worked for email spam?

Is that the best you can do? Email spammers compared to the organ donation service? Weak.

Quote

Organ harvesting is a time critical action. Couple that this with a presumption that the person is willing, and opt out will fail badly.

Why?

Which part of this is unclear? If they do a lookup on Tony Blair and only see an entry for Anthony Blair and the organs go bad in 30 minutes and obviously he isn't conscious to say which one he is, are the doctors going to err on the side of taking them or not? Same if the guy is John Smith and the database has 27 entries for that name, but a million exist.

The issues with email opt-out versus opt-in are quite on topic. It shifts the burden to the wrong party, and even without fraud has a lot of error and delays for changes to be effective.

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

Quote

EXCEPT that even if a person has the box checked on his driver's license saying that he wants to donate his organs, a family member who doesn't want them donated can over-ride his decision.

That doesn't have anything to do with allowing the state to make the decision. The OP suggests that family could over-ride the state as well. The arguement isn't about whether or not family has a say in the matter, it's about whether the government does.

I didn't actually say the problem that I was thinking of then. Should the State be able to over-ride the immediate family in making this decision? That's a step away from the original post, of course, but since the issue of driver's license is brought up, I think it's valid.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[labrys 0]

Quote

I didn't actually say the problem that I was thinking of then. Should the State be able to over-ride the immediate family in making this decision? That's a step away from the original post, of course, but since the issue of driver's license is brought up, I think it's valid.

It's not too far away from the OP since the OP says that the state will not be allowed to over-ride family.

Or are you asking if the original idea should be changed to allow the state to over-ride?

Owned by Remi #?

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

I don't see where the current system is broken.

There are not enough registered organ donors. There is a great discrepancy between the number of people polls show are in favour of having there organs donated and the number of people who are actually registered organ donors. Have you been paying that little attention?

Quote

Apply your argument to a DNR order.

What purpose would that serve? There is quite a difference between deciding what life saving measures to take on a living person and what to do with a dead person.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

Quote

I didn't actually say the problem that I was thinking of then. Should the State be able to over-ride the immediate family in making this decision? That's a step away from the original post, of course, but since the issue of driver's license is brought up, I think it's valid.

It's not too far away from the OP since the OP says that the state will not be allowed to over-ride family.

Or are you asking if the original idea should be changed to allow the state to over-ride?

This situation is a little different in that the deceased had checked the box on his driver's license stating his wish to donate his organs. If the family objects to organ donation, despite what the dead guy's driver's license shows, should the State be able to override the family's decision?

I don't know, myself.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

I think the fuss about "rights" is a little odd. First wouldn't we have to resolve that dead hunks of meat have rights? I haven't seen that argument made.

I don't necessarily DISagree with you, but it has YET to be proven that the state *DOES* have any rights to "that dead hunk of meat" as well.

I'll admit to not being sure when in the process the state takes ownership of the organs, I just know that around here, the government already gets to decide whether they want to do an autopsy on a body.

Quote

Quote

I think the system sounds fine. It is assumed that people who can help others at no cost to themselves will do so, and that people would rather see a spare part save a human life rather than save a colony of bugs. Those "useless wastes of human skin" (to borrow a phrase from Royd) who would prefer that as many people as possible die along with them are free to elect as such.

I don't see where the current system is broken. Those that wish to opt *in* can do so - those that do not have to do nothing.

Why is having to opt out of the program less desirable than having to opt in?

Quote

Quote

The hospitals have to assume something when someone dies. Should they assume the person is or is not a donor? If they assume they are when they actually aren't, nobody is harmed and someone(s) may be helped. If they assume they aren't, when they actually intended to be, nobody is better off and someone(s) else may die as a result. Thus, the preferred assumption is a pretty simple matter.

Let's try a different tack:

Apply your argument to a DNR order. Should the hospitals assume that all patients brought in have opted for a DNR? Why or why not?

No, because assuming they have a DNR would harm them while benefiting nobody and assuming they do not have a DNR would give them a chance at living while harming nobody. When an assumption must be made, the one that favors life is preferable to the one that favors death...and I'd apply that consistently to both scenarios. The goal of organ donation, like resuscitation, is the preservation of life. The result of not donating organs and/or not resuscitating is increased deaths.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

This situation is a little different in that the deceased had checked the box on his driver's license stating his wish to donate his organs. If the family objects to organ donation, despite what the dead guy's driver's license shows, should the State be able to override the family's decision?

Your wording is all wrong. In that situation I would be asking if the family should be allowed to over-ride the decision of the deceased. The State wouldn't be overriding anyone.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?