6 ms·

It absolutely should be opt-out. I also think that if you choose to opt out, you should not be eligible to receive donated organs.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ghastmaster 6y ago
Do you feel the same way about blood donation/transfusion?
- cjbprime 6y ago
  That's a trickier case in that giving blood is at least an inconvenience while you're still alive to experience it..
  - ghastmaster 6y ago
    The argument is fundamentally the same. The benefit outweighs the cost by a large margin. There are social and psychological reasons for not donating organs after death that apply to blood donation as well.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      Giving blood is low risk, but not risk free. Organ donation at death is entirely risk free to the donor. They have literally nothing to lose from it.
      - ghastmaster 6y ago
        Setting aside the few religious exceptions, that is correct. This gets to the root of the issue. Whether the body is property of the family or of the state. I argue for the former. In the USA there has to be compensation for property taken by the state. There also has to be a public good argument in most jurisdictions as far as I know. Because the beneficiary of the organ is not the general public, but an individual, I do not see how this could work without massive revisions to state and federal law.
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        As far as I can tell, dead bodies aren't property in the US. They can't be stolen (although other laws would likely apply), they aren't part of the deceased's estate, etc. http://thelegalgeeks.com/2014/11/13/stealing-corpses-and-obstruction-of-justice/ http://thelegalgeeks.com/2014/11/13/stealing-corpses-and-obs...
        bborud 6y ago
        Aaaand suddenly the discussion took the un-charming turn where suddenly deceased human beings are possibly property.
      - aklapa 6y ago
        This is just propaganda, in the recent thread there have been numerous examples that this is not always the case. This is why it is unethical to make it opt-out, but in line with the current mixture of ultra-left materialism and ultra-capitalism.
- tialaramex 6y ago
  One reason it could be different - your blood is yours now, but your body after death isn't yours any more, it's just a corpse, any residual rights over it should not supersede society's claim on it for the needs of the living. So this would suggest that by Kant's Categorical Imperative it's fine to only use organ donations from the dead as medical treatment on those who agree (or whom society has taken to agree) that their organs could be likewise used, because if you don't want your dead body used what right could you have to do otherwise?
  - caseysoftware 6y ago
    > should not supersede society's claim on it We are not property of the State therefore, society has no claim on it. If we are property of the State then all we're disagreeing on is the moment where their claims supersede our own. The moment of death is a convenient but negotiable/re-definable point: "Well, they're brain dead already.." or "Well, their quality of life.." or "Their chance of survival.." Or to put it another way: Do you want want [your least favorite politician] writing this policy?
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      As far as I can determine from Googling, under US/UK common law, bodies aren't property at all.
      - ghastmaster 6y ago
        I saw your other comment and was surprised to find the same. I had no clue it was like this. The laws are either vague or explicitly prohibit doing much of anything to a corpse outside the normal burial and cremation.
    - ken 6y ago
      > We are not property of the State therefore, society has no claim on it. If we are property of the State then... You're trying to force this into a "We {are|aren't} property of the state". Both sound completely wrong to me, on multiple levels. It's a TypeError. You're applying words in ways that don't match. (You might as well try to convince me that "Beethoven's 5th is either color, or black-and-white". No, those are both wrong. I'm not going to agree with any conclusions you reach starting from either condition.) Humans aren't "property" (of themselves, or anything else). And the state doesn't own something today just because it may own it after your death (e.g., when a person without a will dies, their house may go to the state, but that in no way means their house was "property of the state" while they were alive, and definitely not that all houses are property of the state). > Do you want want [your least favorite politician] writing this policy? Again, that sounds like a fallacy that's trying to goad people into a false choice. I don't want my least favorite politician writing any government policy. There is no framework yet conceived under which a malicious administrator would not be able to cause great harm by instituting a policy of their own design. That doesn't mean all such policies are inherently ill-conceived.
- ken 6y ago
  I would not withhold blood from anyone who needs it, no matter how much of a jerk they are, but I am leaning towards the (admittedly unpopular) belief that members of society should have an obligation to donate at least a minimal amount on occasion. Blood is a funny case because we have a huge never-ending need for fresh blood, and a great number of people (est. 1/3 to 1/2 the population) are eligible to donate, yet very few do. Globally we're so desperate for supply that, even though the WHO has set a goal of 100% non-paid volunteer donors due to safety concerns, we do still have to pay people, and America sells a lot of blood overseas to all those other countries who are too cautious to pay their donors cash outright. Tons of people are perfectly willing to donate blood. That's not even the problem. In the aftermath of a disaster, blood centers near the disaster area often have so many donors they have to throw some of it away. People are not that afraid of needles, or unwilling to help their fellow humans. They just don't, usually. Living in my developed country with all of its benefits has costs. I pay taxes to help fund the general welfare, and may be called to serve on a jury, or even go fight in a war. Calling on a few people to give blood doesn't sound too onerous to me. I don't claim to have the answer, but I think everyone agrees we can do a lot better than what we've got now.
liamkinne 6y ago
Just because you opt out of organ donation doesn’t mean you can’t or haven’t donated an organ while you’re alive.
- mattigames 6y ago
  Israel did it best, if you opt-out you are still a organ receiver but anyone registered as organ donor on queue has higher priority than you.
  - echelon 6y ago
    That's clever so long as it doesn't impact those who can't donate due to medical issues, eg. auto-immune disorders, cancer, etc.
    - mattigames 6y ago
      Organ donor is an umbrella term, is not determined your organs are actually gonna be used until you die and a doctor assess the quality of your organs -including damage pre-existing conditions-, so you can be legally a "organ donor" even if they none are actually good enough.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      Those folks can still donate. Their donations might just not be accepted. The willingness is what's important.
- bborud 6y ago
  Note that there are more organs than kidneys. The hardest organ to find a donor/recipient pairing for are lungs.
at_a_remove 6y ago
You should think more about the edge cases on this one.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ghastmaster 6y ago

Do you feel the same way about blood donation/transfusion?

cjbprime 6y ago
That's a trickier case in that giving blood is at least an inconvenience while you're still alive to experience it..
- ghastmaster 6y ago
  The argument is fundamentally the same. The benefit outweighs the cost by a large margin. There are social and psychological reasons for not donating organs after death that apply to blood donation as well.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    Giving blood is low risk, but not risk free. Organ donation at death is entirely risk free to the donor. They have literally nothing to lose from it.
    - ghastmaster 6y ago
      Setting aside the few religious exceptions, that is correct. This gets to the root of the issue. Whether the body is property of the family or of the state. I argue for the former. In the USA there has to be compensation for property taken by the state. There also has to be a public good argument in most jurisdictions as far as I know. Because the beneficiary of the organ is not the general public, but an individual, I do not see how this could work without massive revisions to state and federal law.
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        As far as I can tell, dead bodies aren't property in the US. They can't be stolen (although other laws would likely apply), they aren't part of the deceased's estate, etc. http://thelegalgeeks.com/2014/11/13/stealing-corpses-and-obstruction-of-justice/ http://thelegalgeeks.com/2014/11/13/stealing-corpses-and-obs...
      - bborud 6y ago
        Aaaand suddenly the discussion took the un-charming turn where suddenly deceased human beings are possibly property.
    - aklapa 6y ago
      This is just propaganda, in the recent thread there have been numerous examples that this is not always the case. This is why it is unethical to make it opt-out, but in line with the current mixture of ultra-left materialism and ultra-capitalism.
tialaramex 6y ago
One reason it could be different - your blood is yours now, but your body after death isn't yours any more, it's just a corpse, any residual rights over it should not supersede society's claim on it for the needs of the living. So this would suggest that by Kant's Categorical Imperative it's fine to only use organ donations from the dead as medical treatment on those who agree (or whom society has taken to agree) that their organs could be likewise used, because if you don't want your dead body used what right could you have to do otherwise?
- caseysoftware 6y ago
  > should not supersede society's claim on it We are not property of the State therefore, society has no claim on it. If we are property of the State then all we're disagreeing on is the moment where their claims supersede our own. The moment of death is a convenient but negotiable/re-definable point: "Well, they're brain dead already.." or "Well, their quality of life.." or "Their chance of survival.." Or to put it another way: Do you want want [your least favorite politician] writing this policy?
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    As far as I can determine from Googling, under US/UK common law, bodies aren't property at all.
    - ghastmaster 6y ago
      I saw your other comment and was surprised to find the same. I had no clue it was like this. The laws are either vague or explicitly prohibit doing much of anything to a corpse outside the normal burial and cremation.
  - ken 6y ago
    > We are not property of the State therefore, society has no claim on it. If we are property of the State then... You're trying to force this into a "We {are|aren't} property of the state". Both sound completely wrong to me, on multiple levels. It's a TypeError. You're applying words in ways that don't match. (You might as well try to convince me that "Beethoven's 5th is either color, or black-and-white". No, those are both wrong. I'm not going to agree with any conclusions you reach starting from either condition.) Humans aren't "property" (of themselves, or anything else). And the state doesn't own something today just because it may own it after your death (e.g., when a person without a will dies, their house may go to the state, but that in no way means their house was "property of the state" while they were alive, and definitely not that all houses are property of the state). > Do you want want [your least favorite politician] writing this policy? Again, that sounds like a fallacy that's trying to goad people into a false choice. I don't want my least favorite politician writing any government policy. There is no framework yet conceived under which a malicious administrator would not be able to cause great harm by instituting a policy of their own design. That doesn't mean all such policies are inherently ill-conceived.
ken 6y ago
I would not withhold blood from anyone who needs it, no matter how much of a jerk they are, but I am leaning towards the (admittedly unpopular) belief that members of society should have an obligation to donate at least a minimal amount on occasion. Blood is a funny case because we have a huge never-ending need for fresh blood, and a great number of people (est. 1/3 to 1/2 the population) are eligible to donate, yet very few do. Globally we're so desperate for supply that, even though the WHO has set a goal of 100% non-paid volunteer donors due to safety concerns, we do still have to pay people, and America sells a lot of blood overseas to all those other countries who are too cautious to pay their donors cash outright. Tons of people are perfectly willing to donate blood. That's not even the problem. In the aftermath of a disaster, blood centers near the disaster area often have so many donors they have to throw some of it away. People are not that afraid of needles, or unwilling to help their fellow humans. They just don't, usually. Living in my developed country with all of its benefits has costs. I pay taxes to help fund the general welfare, and may be called to serve on a jury, or even go fight in a war. Calling on a few people to give blood doesn't sound too onerous to me. I don't claim to have the answer, but I think everyone agrees we can do a lot better than what we've got now.

liamkinne 6y ago

Just because you opt out of organ donation doesn’t mean you can’t or haven’t donated an organ while you’re alive.

mattigames 6y ago
Israel did it best, if you opt-out you are still a organ receiver but anyone registered as organ donor on queue has higher priority than you.
- echelon 6y ago
  That's clever so long as it doesn't impact those who can't donate due to medical issues, eg. auto-immune disorders, cancer, etc.
  - mattigames 6y ago
    Organ donor is an umbrella term, is not determined your organs are actually gonna be used until you die and a doctor assess the quality of your organs -including damage pre-existing conditions-, so you can be legally a "organ donor" even if they none are actually good enough.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    Those folks can still donate. Their donations might just not be accepted. The willingness is what's important.
bborud 6y ago
Note that there are more organs than kidneys. The hardest organ to find a donor/recipient pairing for are lungs.

at_a_remove 6y ago

You should think more about the edge cases on this one.