4 ms·

Opt out assume consent is the default position which is in general opposed the nature of consent being something given, not something that has to be withheld.

Opt out assume consent is the default position which is in general opposed the nature of consent being something given, not something that has to be withheld. I get it is for the greater good, but the mentality and treatment of consent in such a schema means the means aren't as clean. Do the ends justify the means in this case? One option I've heard that sounds better is just force people to make a selection when they apply for a drivers license. Current you can opt in, but if you don't do anything you automatically opt out. Instead, just don't accept the form unless they opt in or out. This means the people who would donate but either miss the form or think they'll eventually sign up later (and never get around to it) are signed up. And, if the ends do justify the means, what about requiring people to be organ donors except for the same exclusions allowed with vaccines? We effectively force vaccines for the greater good and this would be another similar case. Not like the people will miss their organs and as for the family, they won't even know unless you told them as the funeral industry routinely repairing bodies that have gone through far more than an organ donation.

cjbprime 6y ago
You're saying "maybe we should avoid saving millions of lives a year because someone might feel really strongly that they don't want to save lives after they die, but not strongly enough to go to the effort of ticking a box on a form". Yes, the ends justify the means. It's, like, one of the foremost global examples of an ends-justify-means cost-benefit change we could make to improve lives.
- Vinnl 6y ago
  So how do you feel about GP's final paragraph: making donation obligatory?
  - cjbprime 6y ago
    Then the ends are no longer awesome, because people would likely be sad about not having their decisions respected by the rest of society.
    - Vinnl 6y ago
      But, to rephrase your earlier comment: You're saying "maybe we should avoid saving millions of lives a year because someone might feel sad that they don't want to save lives after they die". It's not clear to me why that would apply to the earlier comment, but not to yours. Unless it's because of the part I left out about them not feeling strongly enough about ticking a box, but then I don't see what the problem is with the original suggestion of making that box-ticking obligatory.
      - cjbprime 6y ago
        Disallowing opt-out hurts some of the people whose organs will be donated, while those people are still alive. If they have a strong objection which doesn't qualify for an exclusion, they have to spend their life feeling this lack of control and disrespect of their after-death wishes. Just switching to opt-in by default has none of these problems, so that's why I support opt-in-by-default but not mandatory donation. It's not inconsistent .
        Vinnl 6y ago
        > Disallowing opt-out hurts some of the people whose organs will be donated, while those people are still alive. If they have a strong objection which doesn't qualify for an exclusion, they have to spend their life feeling this lack of control and disrespect of their after-death wishes. Doesn't opt-out also hurt people while they are alive, who are now pressured to remain vigilant about having to make sure they're not missing any forms, or their forms not being processed correctly, etc., spending their life feeling a lack of control where a single misstep results in disrespecting their after-death wishes? And again, what's the problem with making the box-ticking obligatory e.g. when picking up a driver's licence, rather than making it opt-out?
        cjbprime 6y ago
        We may have miscommunicated. I'm fine with making the box-ticking mandatory, but not the donation mandatory. In your earlier messages you asked about mandatory donation, not mandatory box-ticking. Opt-in-by-default does have the disadvantage you mentioned, but I don't think it carries much weight. Society could solve this problem just by sending a certificate/card to people who opt-out to tell both them and medical practitioners of their choice.
ceejayoz 6y ago
We'll do an autopsy on a dead body without its consent. Why not an organ donation? > And, if the ends do justify the means, what about requiring people to be organ donors except for the same exclusions allowed with vaccines? I'm fine with this.
- ghastmaster 6y ago
  > We'll do an autopsy on a dead body without its consent. Why not an organ donation? Assuming you are a proponent of opt-out organ donation: Should then bodies be taken as needed for scientific research?
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    That would depend significantly on whether there's a demonstrable shortage of bodies for scientific research of the life-saving kind.
jonnypotty 6y ago
Familys decide, they always did and continue to. This rule just means people are automatically considered for donation.
ken 6y ago
After death, isn't consent (in terms of donation-to-the-state) the default? If I buy a house and then die without having written a will ("opting out"), the government can indeed take it. Yes, in that case they would normally try to give it to my heirs first, but my heirs have no right of ownership of my organs.

cjbprime 6y ago

You're saying "maybe we should avoid saving millions of lives a year because someone might feel really strongly that they don't want to save lives after they die, but not strongly enough to go to the effort of ticking a box on a form". Yes, the ends justify the means. It's, like, one of the foremost global examples of an ends-justify-means cost-benefit change we could make to improve lives.

Vinnl 6y ago
So how do you feel about GP's final paragraph: making donation obligatory?
- cjbprime 6y ago
  Then the ends are no longer awesome, because people would likely be sad about not having their decisions respected by the rest of society.
  - Vinnl 6y ago
    But, to rephrase your earlier comment: You're saying "maybe we should avoid saving millions of lives a year because someone might feel sad that they don't want to save lives after they die". It's not clear to me why that would apply to the earlier comment, but not to yours. Unless it's because of the part I left out about them not feeling strongly enough about ticking a box, but then I don't see what the problem is with the original suggestion of making that box-ticking obligatory.
    - cjbprime 6y ago
      Disallowing opt-out hurts some of the people whose organs will be donated, while those people are still alive. If they have a strong objection which doesn't qualify for an exclusion, they have to spend their life feeling this lack of control and disrespect of their after-death wishes. Just switching to opt-in by default has none of these problems, so that's why I support opt-in-by-default but not mandatory donation. It's not inconsistent .
      - Vinnl 6y ago
        > Disallowing opt-out hurts some of the people whose organs will be donated, while those people are still alive. If they have a strong objection which doesn't qualify for an exclusion, they have to spend their life feeling this lack of control and disrespect of their after-death wishes. Doesn't opt-out also hurt people while they are alive, who are now pressured to remain vigilant about having to make sure they're not missing any forms, or their forms not being processed correctly, etc., spending their life feeling a lack of control where a single misstep results in disrespecting their after-death wishes? And again, what's the problem with making the box-ticking obligatory e.g. when picking up a driver's licence, rather than making it opt-out?
        cjbprime 6y ago
        We may have miscommunicated. I'm fine with making the box-ticking mandatory, but not the donation mandatory. In your earlier messages you asked about mandatory donation, not mandatory box-ticking. Opt-in-by-default does have the disadvantage you mentioned, but I don't think it carries much weight. Society could solve this problem just by sending a certificate/card to people who opt-out to tell both them and medical practitioners of their choice.

ceejayoz 6y ago

We'll do an autopsy on a dead body without its consent. Why not an organ donation? > And, if the ends do justify the means, what about requiring people to be organ donors except for the same exclusions allowed with vaccines? I'm fine with this.

ghastmaster 6y ago
> We'll do an autopsy on a dead body without its consent. Why not an organ donation? Assuming you are a proponent of opt-out organ donation: Should then bodies be taken as needed for scientific research?
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  That would depend significantly on whether there's a demonstrable shortage of bodies for scientific research of the life-saving kind.

jonnypotty 6y ago

Familys decide, they always did and continue to. This rule just means people are automatically considered for donation.

ken 6y ago

After death, isn't consent (in terms of donation-to-the-state) the default? If I buy a house and then die without having written a will ("opting out"), the government can indeed take it. Yes, in that case they would normally try to give it to my heirs first, but my heirs have no right of ownership of my organs.