19 ms·

Eh, I guess here comes an unpopular opinion. While the pragmatist in me is well aware of how opt-in increases donations ( although at certain point the question

Eh, I guess here comes an unpopular opinion. While the pragmatist in me is well aware of how opt-in increases donations ( although at certain point the question has to be asked whether if they coerced through law, is donation the right term for that ), I instinctively dislike government imposition here. I do not believe ends justifies the means. And as always, eventually, while the option might be technically available, just like the TSA opt out, you will be basically shamed into compliance.

bassman9000 6y ago
Already happening in this thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23252408 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23252408 The next step is shaming those who opt-out. Which will then cement the ownership of the state over your organs. Edit: and more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23252636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23252636
- ch4s3 6y ago
  Would you prefer your next of kin be allowed to sell them instead?
  - bassman9000 6y ago
    Strawman. I would prefer opt-in.
    - vkou 6y ago
      I would happily support the privilege of people to opt out of organ donations, as long as they are willing to irrevocably forego being the beneficiaries of an organ transplant. Or hell, at that point, I'd happily make it opt-in.
      - yongjik 6y ago
        I'm not so sure about that. I can easily imagine misguided parents angrily opting their children out - it would be cruel to deny transplant to these kids just because their parents are, well, not so bright.
      - triceratops 6y ago
        I disagree. If there's an available organ and a recipient in need, it should be used regardless of the recipient's donor status. Why waste the chance to save a life? Donated organs aren't good for very long. It's fine to use donor status as a tie-breaker if multiple recipients are in contention. EDIT: Plus the other reply about children.
        vkou 6y ago
        There's nearly always a shortage of organs, and people who opt out are contributing to this shortage. If you want donor status to be a tie-breaker, it will, in practice, be a ban.
- triceratops 6y ago
  The thread you linked doesn't have any shaming. It proposes a quid-pro-quo linked to willingness to be open to organ donation. Your choices remain private, so the only people who can shame you are those you choose to tell. In addition to that, there was this: > Will you automatically take my organs if I don't opt out? No. Your family would always be involved before donation takes place, so it is really important that you choose whether you want to be a donor and discuss what you want to happen with your family, so your decision is clear and they can have peace of mind knowing that your decision is being honoured.[1] 1. https://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/helping-you-to-decide/about-organ-donation/faq/what-is-the-opt-out-system/ https://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/helping-you-to-decide/about...
  - bassman9000 6y ago
    The thread exposes exactly what OP was suggesting: you start by making it automatic with opt-out, instead of explicit opt-in. And the next step is to suggest you don't deserve an organ because you opted out. No one would suggest it before, if you didn't opt in. I'll save the thread for the first time some politician uses the you're not an organ donor ammunition against another. Which will happen. Which didn't happen before. It's a subtle but profound change, and the legislators clearly knew and sought that. > Your family would always be involved before donation takes place That's nice, what will happen if: a) you don't have close family b) they can't be contacted fast enough
    - triceratops 6y ago
      > No one would suggest it before, if you didn't opt in. Because in an opt-in system it's possible to not be an organ donor through oversight, laziness, lack of awareness, or carelessness. In an opt-out system, you have to actively want to not be an organ donor and take steps to ensure that. I agree that making people who opt-out completely ineligible to receive donations is not right - you should always save a life if it's possible. I also don't see the problem with putting people who opt-out in the back of the line. None of that fits the definition of "shaming" though, which is what the original poster was concerned about.
RandallBrown 6y ago
Shamed by who? Is it not just a checkbox on a website somewhere?
oneplane 6y ago
Then how would you describe a process in which people have to make it known what they want instead of leaving it up to guesswork? All alternatives explored so far just leads to death, misery, and a small portion of the population having a benefit while the rest suffers. And anti-government in general seems to be stance that often comes with "I don't like it", but without a solution and the only thing I've seen so far is people coming up with a "let's do nothing" alternative. That's not a real alternative at all because it doesn't solve anything. Either bring something else that also works, or accept that the best we can do so far is come up with imperfect solutions.
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  Why is it left to guesswork? Plenty of places make it opt-in but present the option regularly. Every time I renew my drivers license there is a clearly marked checkbox for opting-in to organ donation.
ken 6y ago
That's a weird analogy. TSA "opt out" is basically impossible. Have you ever tried it? It's not shame. The agents simply don't allow you to. Changing your organ donation status is not just possible, but easy. In the organ donation case, who do you think would "shame you into compliance"? How would anyone else even know? I don't know the organ donation status of anyone else in the world, even my family and close friends, and even those who have died.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jkaplowitz 6y ago
  Yes, every time I've opted out with TSA (which I do most of the times I'm required to go through the full-body scanners in the US rather than the TSA Pre metal detector) I've been allowed to do so. It's often meant a long wait for an agent to become available, but I've never been refused. I admit to being a white male US citizen who politely requests it using the words "I'd like to opt out" (rather than some vaguer objection) and then waits patiently, not someone who gets angry at the officers. The ground rules aren't the fault of the workers, only any individual bad behavior.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- caseysoftware 6y ago
  I've traveled close to 100k miles/year for ~8 years and have opted out successfully hundreds of times. When they ask why, I just stand quietly. I used to explain the legal and moral implications but the mall cops - I mean TSA - don't care. And for a fun alternate strategy: instead of opting out, if you just say "I can't raise my arms above my head," you can skip all of it. You don't even have to explain why because they're not supposed to ask. You'll go through the metal detector and get a hand swab and you're done. Most of the time, I get through to the other side before my bags.
triceratops 6y ago
> just like the TSA opt out, you will be basically shamed into compliance. How? TSA security checks happen in public. Opting out of this involves ticking a box on a form and it remains private (I assume).
hoorayimhelping 6y ago
>And as always, eventually, while the option might be technically available, just like the TSA opt out, you will be basically shamed into compliance. What is this? In the past five years, I've probably flown 15 times and every time, I've opted out just fine. Just stand there waiting to one side until someone comes to pat you down. The pat down is consistent across airports, and you can usually count on the TSA agent to be courteous and professional. I can't stand the agency or their dictum that they're keeping the skies safe, but individual agents seem to be decent folk. Never had any feeling of shame from other passengers or TSA agents. Maybe I'm lucky or privileged or something. But if you don't want to get scanned, tell the agent you want to opt out. You don't have to be a haughty prick about it. Just say, "I want to opt out, please." And when they say, "okay, stand over there," nod and say, "thank you."
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

bassman9000 6y ago

Already happening in this thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23252408 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23252408 The next step is shaming those who opt-out. Which will then cement the ownership of the state over your organs. Edit: and more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23252636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23252636

ch4s3 6y ago
Would you prefer your next of kin be allowed to sell them instead?
- bassman9000 6y ago
  Strawman. I would prefer opt-in.
  - vkou 6y ago
    I would happily support the privilege of people to opt out of organ donations, as long as they are willing to irrevocably forego being the beneficiaries of an organ transplant. Or hell, at that point, I'd happily make it opt-in.
    - yongjik 6y ago
      I'm not so sure about that. I can easily imagine misguided parents angrily opting their children out - it would be cruel to deny transplant to these kids just because their parents are, well, not so bright.
    - triceratops 6y ago
      I disagree. If there's an available organ and a recipient in need, it should be used regardless of the recipient's donor status. Why waste the chance to save a life? Donated organs aren't good for very long. It's fine to use donor status as a tie-breaker if multiple recipients are in contention. EDIT: Plus the other reply about children.
      - vkou 6y ago
        There's nearly always a shortage of organs, and people who opt out are contributing to this shortage. If you want donor status to be a tie-breaker, it will, in practice, be a ban.
triceratops 6y ago
The thread you linked doesn't have any shaming. It proposes a quid-pro-quo linked to willingness to be open to organ donation. Your choices remain private, so the only people who can shame you are those you choose to tell. In addition to that, there was this: > Will you automatically take my organs if I don't opt out? No. Your family would always be involved before donation takes place, so it is really important that you choose whether you want to be a donor and discuss what you want to happen with your family, so your decision is clear and they can have peace of mind knowing that your decision is being honoured.[1] 1. https://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/helping-you-to-decide/about-organ-donation/faq/what-is-the-opt-out-system/ https://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/helping-you-to-decide/about...
- bassman9000 6y ago
  The thread exposes exactly what OP was suggesting: you start by making it automatic with opt-out, instead of explicit opt-in. And the next step is to suggest you don't deserve an organ because you opted out. No one would suggest it before, if you didn't opt in. I'll save the thread for the first time some politician uses the you're not an organ donor ammunition against another. Which will happen. Which didn't happen before. It's a subtle but profound change, and the legislators clearly knew and sought that. > Your family would always be involved before donation takes place That's nice, what will happen if: a) you don't have close family b) they can't be contacted fast enough
  - triceratops 6y ago
    > No one would suggest it before, if you didn't opt in. Because in an opt-in system it's possible to not be an organ donor through oversight, laziness, lack of awareness, or carelessness. In an opt-out system, you have to actively want to not be an organ donor and take steps to ensure that. I agree that making people who opt-out completely ineligible to receive donations is not right - you should always save a life if it's possible. I also don't see the problem with putting people who opt-out in the back of the line. None of that fits the definition of "shaming" though, which is what the original poster was concerned about.

RandallBrown 6y ago

Shamed by who? Is it not just a checkbox on a website somewhere?

oneplane 6y ago

Then how would you describe a process in which people have to make it known what they want instead of leaving it up to guesswork? All alternatives explored so far just leads to death, misery, and a small portion of the population having a benefit while the rest suffers. And anti-government in general seems to be stance that often comes with "I don't like it", but without a solution and the only thing I've seen so far is people coming up with a "let's do nothing" alternative. That's not a real alternative at all because it doesn't solve anything. Either bring something else that also works, or accept that the best we can do so far is come up with imperfect solutions.

rootusrootus 6y ago
Why is it left to guesswork? Plenty of places make it opt-in but present the option regularly. Every time I renew my drivers license there is a clearly marked checkbox for opting-in to organ donation.

ken 6y ago

That's a weird analogy. TSA "opt out" is basically impossible. Have you ever tried it? It's not shame. The agents simply don't allow you to. Changing your organ donation status is not just possible, but easy. In the organ donation case, who do you think would "shame you into compliance"? How would anyone else even know? I don't know the organ donation status of anyone else in the world, even my family and close friends, and even those who have died.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jkaplowitz 6y ago
Yes, every time I've opted out with TSA (which I do most of the times I'm required to go through the full-body scanners in the US rather than the TSA Pre metal detector) I've been allowed to do so. It's often meant a long wait for an agent to become available, but I've never been refused. I admit to being a white male US citizen who politely requests it using the words "I'd like to opt out" (rather than some vaguer objection) and then waits patiently, not someone who gets angry at the officers. The ground rules aren't the fault of the workers, only any individual bad behavior.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
caseysoftware 6y ago
I've traveled close to 100k miles/year for ~8 years and have opted out successfully hundreds of times. When they ask why, I just stand quietly. I used to explain the legal and moral implications but the mall cops - I mean TSA - don't care. And for a fun alternate strategy: instead of opting out, if you just say "I can't raise my arms above my head," you can skip all of it. You don't even have to explain why because they're not supposed to ask. You'll go through the metal detector and get a hand swab and you're done. Most of the time, I get through to the other side before my bags.

triceratops 6y ago

> just like the TSA opt out, you will be basically shamed into compliance. How? TSA security checks happen in public. Opting out of this involves ticking a box on a form and it remains private (I assume).

hoorayimhelping 6y ago

>And as always, eventually, while the option might be technically available, just like the TSA opt out, you will be basically shamed into compliance. What is this? In the past five years, I've probably flown 15 times and every time, I've opted out just fine. Just stand there waiting to one side until someone comes to pat you down. The pat down is consistent across airports, and you can usually count on the TSA agent to be courteous and professional. I can't stand the agency or their dictum that they're keeping the skies safe, but individual agents seem to be decent folk. Never had any feeling of shame from other passengers or TSA agents. Maybe I'm lucky or privileged or something. But if you don't want to get scanned, tell the agent you want to opt out. You don't have to be a haughty prick about it. Just say, "I want to opt out, please." And when they say, "okay, stand over there," nod and say, "thank you."

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]