3 ms·
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 case
by 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 agoThere 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...