3 ms·

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 wh

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.

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.