9 ms·

"I don't even care why you would want to keep all your organs after death" I don't, but I also want every measure to be taken to ensure I survive. With the cor

"I don't even care why you would want to keep all your organs after death" I don't, but I also want every measure to be taken to ensure I survive. With the corruption and dishonesty we've seen from the police all the way to the highest levels of government, I no longer believe my best interests will be honored. I used to be a donor, but I've lost faith in our institutions, especially when it comes to Healthcare. Do you trust insurance companies? If so, why?

pzh 10y ago
Why is this downvoted? I think it's a valid concern. How do you know that in some small village somewhere the local government isn't so corrupt as to make sure the organ donation process gets 'speeded up' to serve the need of some wealthy/influential organ recipient in waiting?
- raesene9 10y ago
  I didn't downvote, but I've got to say I don't think it is a valid concern. If you honestly have so little faith in local government that you believe they would change the care options of a patient to "speed up" organ donation, what makes you think they wouldn't disregard the patients preferences on organ donation and just remove the relavent item after death and before handing the body over to the family?
  - pzh 10y ago
    Aren't you effectively saying that it's pointless to lock your house, because if a thief is immoral enough to enter and steal your TV, they'd be immoral enough to break the lock as well?
    - raesene9 10y ago
      nope I'm saying that one is as easy or indeed easier than another. Once you assume an immoral authority has control over patient care it's frankly easier and less risky for them just to remove organs without patient consent after death, than deliberately give poor care to hasten the patient's demise.
      - jlg23 10y ago
        a) My patient might be dead by the time the donor dies, less profit for me. b) "deliberately poor care" or "generous amounts of painkillers"? The alternative phrasing is exactly how assisted suicide works in societies where it is not legal. And here some story reported in 2012, in Germany (English article, though): http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/organ-transplant-scandal-shocks-germany-a-848016.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/organ-transplant...
        alendit 10y ago
        Did you read the article? Patients were pushed to the top of the list, no donor was given subpar treatment, that would be murder.
    - finiter 10y ago
      If you don't want a thief to steal your TV, marking the 'Don't Rob Me' box on your Driver's License is not a useful protection.
  - putlake 10y ago
    There is a paper trail, at least in developed countries with a formal waiting list. So a corrupt authority harvesting organs without consent cannot just use it without informing the registry about where the organ came from.
    - arjie 10y ago
      These corrupt doctors are willing to kill people and/or steal their organs, but they insist on notifying the registry before they put the stolen organs in the recipient? Sounds absurd, man.
  - Frondo 10y ago
    I don't think it's a valid concern, because they're effectively calling doctors murderers working on behalf of a nearby wealthy person. If the system has broken down to where doctors will kill patients for the nearby wealthy person, why not just kill you outright to steal your organs?
    - ghaff 10y ago
      It's also not how donated organ allocation happens in the US. A hospital can't just grab an organ from a local donor and use it. And, if someone thinks the system is so corrupt that those processes aren't followed, I'm not sure what laws etc. will make a difference.
Freak_NL 10y ago
Objectively, this depends a lot on where you live, and subjectively, on how you perceive your government and society. Regardless, you can opt-out. You argument makes sense if a state made organ donation mandatory, but I don't think any country has such a law.
- zdean 10y ago
  If we've moved from opt-in to opt-out, what do you think is the next logical step in that path if not mandatory donation? And if the argument is that we should move to opt-out because "greater good", then what's the argument against mandatory donations?
  - colinbartlett 10y ago
    If there is mandatory donation, or even if there is opt-out, wouldn't that increase the supply to meet the demand, thereby reducing any incentive for profit on the sale of organs and eliminating any motive for corruption?
    - zdean 10y ago
      If the end justifies the means, then I think it's irrelevant whether the change causes demand to be met so long as more people get the organs they need. On the other hand, if you don't believe that the end justifies the means, then it's completely irrelevant because you have to respect people's choices over their bodies (even posthumously) even if you think they are misguided or 'selfish'.
    - halfdgvfyjjuc 10y ago
      Only if the supply actually increased enough to actually meet demand. It is far from clear that it would.
  - Freak_NL 10y ago
    Both opt-in and opt-out offer you the same degree of choice; neither is a step towards mandatory organ donation.

pzh 10y ago

Why is this downvoted? I think it's a valid concern. How do you know that in some small village somewhere the local government isn't so corrupt as to make sure the organ donation process gets 'speeded up' to serve the need of some wealthy/influential organ recipient in waiting?

raesene9 10y ago
I didn't downvote, but I've got to say I don't think it is a valid concern. If you honestly have so little faith in local government that you believe they would change the care options of a patient to "speed up" organ donation, what makes you think they wouldn't disregard the patients preferences on organ donation and just remove the relavent item after death and before handing the body over to the family?
- pzh 10y ago
  Aren't you effectively saying that it's pointless to lock your house, because if a thief is immoral enough to enter and steal your TV, they'd be immoral enough to break the lock as well?
  - raesene9 10y ago
    nope I'm saying that one is as easy or indeed easier than another. Once you assume an immoral authority has control over patient care it's frankly easier and less risky for them just to remove organs without patient consent after death, than deliberately give poor care to hasten the patient's demise.
    - jlg23 10y ago
      a) My patient might be dead by the time the donor dies, less profit for me. b) "deliberately poor care" or "generous amounts of painkillers"? The alternative phrasing is exactly how assisted suicide works in societies where it is not legal. And here some story reported in 2012, in Germany (English article, though): http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/organ-transplant-scandal-shocks-germany-a-848016.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/organ-transplant...
      - alendit 10y ago
        Did you read the article? Patients were pushed to the top of the list, no donor was given subpar treatment, that would be murder.
  - finiter 10y ago
    If you don't want a thief to steal your TV, marking the 'Don't Rob Me' box on your Driver's License is not a useful protection.
- putlake 10y ago
  There is a paper trail, at least in developed countries with a formal waiting list. So a corrupt authority harvesting organs without consent cannot just use it without informing the registry about where the organ came from.
  - arjie 10y ago
    These corrupt doctors are willing to kill people and/or steal their organs, but they insist on notifying the registry before they put the stolen organs in the recipient? Sounds absurd, man.
- Frondo 10y ago
  I don't think it's a valid concern, because they're effectively calling doctors murderers working on behalf of a nearby wealthy person. If the system has broken down to where doctors will kill patients for the nearby wealthy person, why not just kill you outright to steal your organs?
  - ghaff 10y ago
    It's also not how donated organ allocation happens in the US. A hospital can't just grab an organ from a local donor and use it. And, if someone thinks the system is so corrupt that those processes aren't followed, I'm not sure what laws etc. will make a difference.

Freak_NL 10y ago

Objectively, this depends a lot on where you live, and subjectively, on how you perceive your government and society. Regardless, you can opt-out. You argument makes sense if a state made organ donation mandatory, but I don't think any country has such a law.

zdean 10y ago
If we've moved from opt-in to opt-out, what do you think is the next logical step in that path if not mandatory donation? And if the argument is that we should move to opt-out because "greater good", then what's the argument against mandatory donations?
- colinbartlett 10y ago
  If there is mandatory donation, or even if there is opt-out, wouldn't that increase the supply to meet the demand, thereby reducing any incentive for profit on the sale of organs and eliminating any motive for corruption?
  - zdean 10y ago
    If the end justifies the means, then I think it's irrelevant whether the change causes demand to be met so long as more people get the organs they need. On the other hand, if you don't believe that the end justifies the means, then it's completely irrelevant because you have to respect people's choices over their bodies (even posthumously) even if you think they are misguided or 'selfish'.
  - halfdgvfyjjuc 10y ago
    Only if the supply actually increased enough to actually meet demand. It is far from clear that it would.
- Freak_NL 10y ago
  Both opt-in and opt-out offer you the same degree of choice; neither is a step towards mandatory organ donation.