4 ms·

People are rather bad at handling low-probability events. We underestimate the likelihood of bad events, and overestimate the likelihood of good events. If pe

People are rather bad at handling low-probability events. We underestimate the likelihood of bad events, and overestimate the likelihood of good events. If people were purely rational, your solution would work. However, people would underestimate the chance that they themselves will need an organ transplant, and so the lower chance of getting a transplant if needed would not be a good motivator. I am strongly in favor of organ donation being opt-out, rather than opt-in.

shshhdhs 10y ago
> I am strongly in favor of organ donation being opt-out, rather than opt-in. You're right. This would be an acceptable approach, with (perhaps) opting out placing you at the bottom of the list (if organ donation is not out of their control). Question to HN: What is the best method to propose this within the US government? The surgeon general? The CDC director? The United Network of Organ Sharing director? Or just my congressman/senator? I'm wondering who has the most clout to make this change.
pbhjpbhj 10y ago
>I am strongly in favor of organ donation being opt-out, rather than opt-in. // Whilst the state assumes control of a person's body around the time of their death, a little pre- or post- mortem, do you also consider that they should assume control of the persons other material assets? If you're in favour of the assumption of state possession of [portions of] a persons body it seems logical you should also think the public should be able to assume the good from that persons other cherry-picked assets. To emphasise the point, suppose a landed millionaire dies, their kidneys prove useful to someone - the state has written in to law that the persons bodily organs will be assumed to be possessions of the state. Would not also that persons properties, liquid assets, and other such non-bodily possessions be beneficial. Indeed they may give far greater benefit than their organs in some cases. Why the organs but not the non-bodily assets? Despite bodies being ruled as "not property" in UK law I'm of the opinion that a person's own body should be as much as feasible theirs to control as the other assets of that person are post-mortem. If people get to say what happens to their house, why should they not get to say what happens to their retinas, say? Personally I find a greater moral good in assuming the possession of the non-bodily assets to the state and allowing people to choose to donate their bodies.
- MereInterest 10y ago
  What you describe is exactly what is already implemented as an estate tax. It makes perfect sense to do so. Furthermore, an estate tax has the benefit of preventing a class of aristocrats from forming, by limiting the amount of wealth that can be passed down through many generations. Default organ donation is different in two ways. One, you can opt out at no cost. Two, the organs would otherwise benefit nobody. In the case of an estate tax, the assets are split between the descendents and society, and nothing is lost. In the case of organ donation, the organs go either to recipients, or to the worms. Clearly, the default behavior should be the one that allows some benefit to be had.

shshhdhs 10y ago

> I am strongly in favor of organ donation being opt-out, rather than opt-in. You're right. This would be an acceptable approach, with (perhaps) opting out placing you at the bottom of the list (if organ donation is not out of their control). Question to HN: What is the best method to propose this within the US government? The surgeon general? The CDC director? The United Network of Organ Sharing director? Or just my congressman/senator? I'm wondering who has the most clout to make this change.

pbhjpbhj 10y ago

>I am strongly in favor of organ donation being opt-out, rather than opt-in. // Whilst the state assumes control of a person's body around the time of their death, a little pre- or post- mortem, do you also consider that they should assume control of the persons other material assets? If you're in favour of the assumption of state possession of [portions of] a persons body it seems logical you should also think the public should be able to assume the good from that persons other cherry-picked assets. To emphasise the point, suppose a landed millionaire dies, their kidneys prove useful to someone - the state has written in to law that the persons bodily organs will be assumed to be possessions of the state. Would not also that persons properties, liquid assets, and other such non-bodily possessions be beneficial. Indeed they may give far greater benefit than their organs in some cases. Why the organs but not the non-bodily assets? Despite bodies being ruled as "not property" in UK law I'm of the opinion that a person's own body should be as much as feasible theirs to control as the other assets of that person are post-mortem. If people get to say what happens to their house, why should they not get to say what happens to their retinas, say? Personally I find a greater moral good in assuming the possession of the non-bodily assets to the state and allowing people to choose to donate their bodies.

MereInterest 10y ago
What you describe is exactly what is already implemented as an estate tax. It makes perfect sense to do so. Furthermore, an estate tax has the benefit of preventing a class of aristocrats from forming, by limiting the amount of wealth that can be passed down through many generations. Default organ donation is different in two ways. One, you can opt out at no cost. Two, the organs would otherwise benefit nobody. In the case of an estate tax, the assets are split between the descendents and society, and nothing is lost. In the case of organ donation, the organs go either to recipients, or to the worms. Clearly, the default behavior should be the one that allows some benefit to be had.