18 ms·

Can you elaborate about this? I can't really see reasons for outside of superstition and clinging to false hopes to be against it being opt out; and even on an

Can you elaborate about this? I can't really see reasons for outside of superstition and clinging to false hopes to be against it being opt out; and even on an opt out system, I find that doctors still "request" the permissions to the family because no one wants to deal with unnecessary legal trouble. Even following the anti authoritarian reasoning, which I'm kind of fond, I find it silly to worry about this, with all the stuff the state decides over your life.

conanbatt 7y ago
It reverts the burden of proof. It is now on you and your family to prove otherwise. > I find that doctors still "request" the permissions to the family because no one wants to deal with unnecessary legal trouble. Until they don't need to. In argentina for example, the legal requirement of getting consent from family members was lifted with the introduction of the opt-out. Funny thing about the opt-out, its an online registration! I've seen opt-out described as a "libertarian paternalism" proposal to say that you have the liberty to choose anything but that there is an opinionated default. I find such reasoning to always lead to a death by a thousand cuts: if every single policy was implemented opt-out, you would definitely be able to manipulate the population into something. > with all the stuff the state decides over your life. I worry about any of them. And I don't find it comforting at all to argue that because individual liberties are breached many times, whats does one more stripe do to the tiger.
- mikeash 7y ago
  There’s always an opinionated default about everything. Having the default be no organ donation is as much a decision of the state as having the default be the opposite.
  - conanbatt 7y ago
    I think I understand the general point, but in this particular case the default is obviously you can't mess with a dead body. You can't go to a cemetery and dig up corpses because "they didn't opt-out of grave-robbery". I would say that the body naturally falls under the concept of private property, which is why it is heinous to desecrate bodies and their belongings when people die. What's crazy to me is that this problem looks so easy to resolve: if you want organ donors, pay for them. A form of reverse insurance: that will get you people in.
    - mikeash 7y ago
      What makes it obvious? Just because it has usually been done that way in the past? Paying for organ donors comes with a host of problems. It’s far from easy.
      - conanbatt 7y ago
        Because you wouldn't take things from a corpse in any other situation, as it is considered unsacred (disrespectful to the body) and robbery (say, take the shoes & wallet of a recently diseased person). > Paying for organ donors comes with a host of problems. It’s far from easy. Nobel prizes have been awarded on one solution to this problem alone!

conanbatt 7y ago

It reverts the burden of proof. It is now on you and your family to prove otherwise. > I find that doctors still "request" the permissions to the family because no one wants to deal with unnecessary legal trouble. Until they don't need to. In argentina for example, the legal requirement of getting consent from family members was lifted with the introduction of the opt-out. Funny thing about the opt-out, its an online registration! I've seen opt-out described as a "libertarian paternalism" proposal to say that you have the liberty to choose anything but that there is an opinionated default. I find such reasoning to always lead to a death by a thousand cuts: if every single policy was implemented opt-out, you would definitely be able to manipulate the population into something. > with all the stuff the state decides over your life. I worry about any of them. And I don't find it comforting at all to argue that because individual liberties are breached many times, whats does one more stripe do to the tiger.

mikeash 7y ago
There’s always an opinionated default about everything. Having the default be no organ donation is as much a decision of the state as having the default be the opposite.
- conanbatt 7y ago
  I think I understand the general point, but in this particular case the default is obviously you can't mess with a dead body. You can't go to a cemetery and dig up corpses because "they didn't opt-out of grave-robbery". I would say that the body naturally falls under the concept of private property, which is why it is heinous to desecrate bodies and their belongings when people die. What's crazy to me is that this problem looks so easy to resolve: if you want organ donors, pay for them. A form of reverse insurance: that will get you people in.
  - mikeash 7y ago
    What makes it obvious? Just because it has usually been done that way in the past? Paying for organ donors comes with a host of problems. It’s far from easy.
    - conanbatt 7y ago
      Because you wouldn't take things from a corpse in any other situation, as it is considered unsacred (disrespectful to the body) and robbery (say, take the shoes & wallet of a recently diseased person). > Paying for organ donors comes with a host of problems. It’s far from easy. Nobel prizes have been awarded on one solution to this problem alone!