4 ms·
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
by 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 agoIf 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 agoIf 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 agoOnly if the supply actually increased enough to actually meet demand. It is far from clear that it would.
- Freak_NL 10y agoBoth opt-in and opt-out offer you the same degree of choice; neither is a step towards mandatory organ donation.
- arjie 10y agoWhy does there have to be a next step?
- alendit 10y agoThis is slippery slope fallacy. The argument against mandatory donations is exactly that - it's makes donations mandatory, while opt-out gives you choice and just changes the default. If you seriously fear for your life as a registered donor, it should be not too much work to check one box.