7 ms·
Are you kidding me? People should have the right to make an informed choice, however they feel about it.
by cameronbrown 6y ago
Are you kidding me? People should have the right to make an informed choice, however they feel about it.
- jonny_eh 6y agoDid it ever make the front-page of a paper that you could opt-in? Why was that not a scandal?
- cameronbrown 6y agoIt's widely known that the NHS needs organ doners. That itself is not the issue for me, the new status quo of the state having the right to harvest my organs is. How are targeted ads and Facebook notifications _opt in_, but this isn't??
- jonny_eh 6y ago> It's widely known that the NHS needs organ doners Give it a day or two, and it too will be widely know that you can opt-out, we're discussing this on the HN front-page afterall, clearly this is no secret. Give it a generation and no one will care either.
- wmichelin 6y agoWhat possible incentive could there be to hoard your organs after death?
- read_if_gay_ 6y agoOrgans are worth a lot of money. The wrong incentives may mean you end up pronounced dead when you could’ve lived because someone is collecting a fat check for your organs.
- kjjw 6y agoNot in the UK.
- ekianjo 6y agoWait until you find out later that there is a black market going on in the UK.
- read_if_gay_ 6y agoHow can you be sure? There are even human trafficking rings in first world countries.
- alibaba_x 6y agoIt's not about hoarding organs. If you are an exact match for some wealthy person on a transplant waitlist you might legitimately fear for your safety.
- cameronbrown 6y ago"Hoard"? They're mine to give away, not the state's. For the record, I already opted-in, but this needs to be a choice.
- jonny_eh 6y agoThey're not yours when you're dead. It's no different from your estate. If you don't leave a will, the state decides what to do with what you leave behind.
- Godel_unicode 6y agoThe first two sentences here are pretty contradictory. If they're not yours then why would you be allowed to direct what happens with them? The will doesn't execute until after you die.
- askk 6y agoYes, Josef Wissarionowitsch, the state decides! Now let me get back to work, I have to work harder for the collective.
- tomjen3 6y agoThe state doesn't choose what to do with my estate, it follows specific rules that are what most people would want. In Denmark, that means that your spouse or children gets the money.
- user982 6y agoYour organs could go to a violent criminal who uses their new lease on life to threaten others': https://www.cnn.com/2015/04/01/us/anthony-stokes-heart-transplant-death/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2015/04/01/us/anthony-stokes-heart-trans...
- mathieuh 6y agoAnd the guy you hold the door open for tomorrow could be just after murdering someone... bit of a stretch there
- chosenbreed37 6y agoThey might be needed in the after life :-). Jokes aside I think individuals should have a right to do what they want with their organs. Even posthumously...
- jonny_eh 6y agoYou can't decide what to do post-humously, for obvious reasons. You can specify before you die though, that's the reason there's an opt-out.
- Fnoord 6y agoOpt-out allows for such. It just assumes most people want to donate. That's a different opt-out than spam. Most people are not interested in spam.
- JoshTriplett 6y agoSeveral: First, there are documented studies showing that known organ donors have a slightly lower survival rate in hospitals than non-donors do. Draw what conclusions from that you will, but some people choose not to be a donor for precisely that reason. And second, if you have any plans or hopes for cryogenic preservation, that's not particularly compatible with organ donation.
- crooked-v 6y ago> Draw what conclusions from that you will An obvious complication here is that in an opt-in system, people who have more directly faced the possibility of death (extreme sports participants, people with chronic conditions, etc) may be more likely to be donors. To get numbers with fewer confounding factors, you would need to look at an opt-out system and compare the default opt-in population with a reasonably comparative slice of people who are not automatically donors but have neither intentionally opted out, such as, in the case of the new NHS policy, 'people who have lived in England for less than 12 months before their death'. > And second, if you have any plans or hopes for cryogenic preservation If you're planning for cryogenic suspension after death (actually planning for it, not just idly thinking about it), filling out an opt-out form is just a minor footnote compared to the piles of other paperwork needed to set up a legal trust to preserve your body.
- Traster 6y agoAlso, just on a human level, people don't want to be chopped up and parcelled out as used parts for other people. I don't feel that way, but I understand how people can feel that way and we should respect their wishes.
- crooked-v 6y ago...in which case it's easy to opt out, for the people who do feel that way.
- stevenwliao 6y agoBut they can't if they don't know it's opt-out, which is why thread OP argues that BBC should announce this.
- devmunchies 6y ago"sanitary fees" at funeral homes are added since they now have to store a leaky mess in their fridge. Some families might not be able to pay for extra costs, even if you're just getting cremated.
- tomjen3 6y agoIt is not just organs, it is also things like your skin, eyes, etc. I think a lot of people would object to having their face carved out and then have it attached to another person. I opted in for everything that can be removed while still having a body that is me that people can say goodbye to.
- tehwebguy 6y agoThey do!
- user982 6y agoBut, following the GP's logic, just imagine how many lives could be saved if they didn't.
- nothal 6y agoI think you can make an argument that people should have the 'right' (is there such a thing as a right held by a nonliving person?) to make an informed choice about their organs but this is certainly an ambiguous situation as to whether or not that right should be given. I personally believe that it would be entirely acceptable if it were not a choice and your organs must be donated (as usable) on death.
- amsl 6y agoOk, so the 100% fascist view is also here now. Sorry, I forgot: We can still leave the country like the Jews in 1933.
- vageli 6y ago> I think you can make an argument that people should have the 'right' (is there such a thing as a right held by a nonliving person?) to make an informed choice about their organs but this is certainly an ambiguous situation as to whether or not that right should be given. I personally believe that it would be entirely acceptable if it were not a choice and your organs must be donated (as usable) on death. So if families don't want the bodies of their loved ones turned over to the state, tough luck? Why does the state have a greater right to my kin than I?
- mantap 6y agoWhat percentage of people refuse to receive a transplant because they disagree with transplantation? It's a tiny number of people. Acceptance of organ transplantation is almost universal outside of religious communities such as jehova's witnesses.
- vageli 6y agoI'm not sure the point you're making. Are you saying that if you would accept an organ transplant you must also be willing to donate your organs upon death? What percentage of people refuse free money?
- i_cannot_hack 6y ago
- DanBC 6y agoThey do have the right to make an informed choice. If you have strong opinions about organ donation you tell your family and tell your doctors.