4 ms·

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 yo

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.
- bassman9000 6y ago
  you have to actively want to not be They turned something you could do for your fellow citizens, 100% of your own volition, and consciously in 100% of the cases, into an obligation. Which, again, makes your organs, unless you opt-out, property of the state. I also don't see the problem with putting people who opt-out in the back of the line. I don't see a problem putting people who pay more taxes in front of the line. They contribute more to the NHS, including making transplants possible. You can even argue than keeping the wealthier alive is more beneficial to the whole system, as, if they die, they'll stop contributing. This is a terrible idea, of course. How much, in any kind, organs or money, you contribute to the system, shouldn't dictate the attention you get. But it's freaking scary how many in this thread are suggesting exactly that.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    There are already criteria used for tie-breaking between organ recipients.[1] Most of them are not in the recipient's control. Are those unfair too? Ideally a default opt-in system would increase supply sufficiently that no one in need will go without. 1. https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/learn/about-transplantation/how-organ-allocation-works/ https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/learn/about-transplantation...

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.

bassman9000 6y ago
you have to actively want to not be They turned something you could do for your fellow citizens, 100% of your own volition, and consciously in 100% of the cases, into an obligation. Which, again, makes your organs, unless you opt-out, property of the state. I also don't see the problem with putting people who opt-out in the back of the line. I don't see a problem putting people who pay more taxes in front of the line. They contribute more to the NHS, including making transplants possible. You can even argue than keeping the wealthier alive is more beneficial to the whole system, as, if they die, they'll stop contributing. This is a terrible idea, of course. How much, in any kind, organs or money, you contribute to the system, shouldn't dictate the attention you get. But it's freaking scary how many in this thread are suggesting exactly that.
- triceratops 6y ago
  There are already criteria used for tie-breaking between organ recipients.[1] Most of them are not in the recipient's control. Are those unfair too? Ideally a default opt-in system would increase supply sufficiently that no one in need will go without. 1. https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/learn/about-transplantation/how-organ-allocation-works/ https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/learn/about-transplantation...