3 ms·

I like the idea of opt-in by default for organ donations. However, I am curious about the results of changing the opt-out option of “you can opt-out but you can

I like the idea of opt-in by default for organ donations. However, I am curious about the results of changing the opt-out option of “you can opt-out but you cannot receive an organ donation if you choose to opt-out”-choice would fare in the real world.

viraptor 6y ago
There would have to be a really large number of opt-outs for that to matter. Unless the opt-outs actually cause still cause a problem after this change, why do it? Trying to punish dead people doesn't sound effective.
- kelnos 6y ago
  My hope is that it would instill a sense of responsibility in some people. If you want to benefit from an organ donation if you ever need a transplant, then the responsible and fair thing to do is to donate into that system yourself when you die.
- tareqak 6y ago
  It’s not punishing dead people. It’s punishing people who benefit from organ donations but choose to not contribute their own organs i.e. those who receive organ donations from those who chose to donate their organs without themselves choosing to donate their own organs. The default-to-being—an-organ-donor/presumed consent approach has proven benefits when it comes to outcomes in medical situations that require organ donors [0][1][2]. The thing that I personally dislike about defaults like these is that it allows people to move through their life ignorant of the good that they are able to do for others and the good that others are able to do for them. In the case of an organ donation question on a driving license, I would personally like there to only be two options that are both not default: opt-in to being an organ donor and being able to receive organ donations, and opt-out to not being an organ donor and then be unable to receive donations. An answer to this question would be required (opt-in or opt-out), and not making a selection would the equivalent of submitting an incomplete driver’s license application such that the application would be rejected. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_effect#Default_setting_as_a_policy_instrument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_effect#Default_setting... [1] https://sparq.stanford.edu/solutions/opt-out-policies-increase-organ-donation https://sparq.stanford.edu/solutions/opt-out-policies-increa... [2] https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/sites/decisionsciences/files/files/Defaults_and_Donation_Decisions_-_Transplantation.pdf https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/sites/decisionsciences/files/f...
  - viraptor 6y ago
    Unless we cross some significant number of opt-outs though and it starts to matter in organ availability statistics, what's the point of that punishment? If we have enough donors overall, I'd love my organs to go anywhere useful - regardless of who receives them. Let's not open the gates for more conditions in the future, because I'm sure some people would enjoy "donate my organs as long as there recipient is not X".
    - tareqak 6y ago
      I guess a compromise could be the following: upon receiving an organ donation, the recipient is asked to consider donating their own organs once again.

viraptor 6y ago

There would have to be a really large number of opt-outs for that to matter. Unless the opt-outs actually cause still cause a problem after this change, why do it? Trying to punish dead people doesn't sound effective.

kelnos 6y ago
My hope is that it would instill a sense of responsibility in some people. If you want to benefit from an organ donation if you ever need a transplant, then the responsible and fair thing to do is to donate into that system yourself when you die.
tareqak 6y ago
It’s not punishing dead people. It’s punishing people who benefit from organ donations but choose to not contribute their own organs i.e. those who receive organ donations from those who chose to donate their organs without themselves choosing to donate their own organs. The default-to-being—an-organ-donor/presumed consent approach has proven benefits when it comes to outcomes in medical situations that require organ donors [0][1][2]. The thing that I personally dislike about defaults like these is that it allows people to move through their life ignorant of the good that they are able to do for others and the good that others are able to do for them. In the case of an organ donation question on a driving license, I would personally like there to only be two options that are both not default: opt-in to being an organ donor and being able to receive organ donations, and opt-out to not being an organ donor and then be unable to receive donations. An answer to this question would be required (opt-in or opt-out), and not making a selection would the equivalent of submitting an incomplete driver’s license application such that the application would be rejected. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_effect#Default_setting_as_a_policy_instrument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_effect#Default_setting... [1] https://sparq.stanford.edu/solutions/opt-out-policies-increase-organ-donation https://sparq.stanford.edu/solutions/opt-out-policies-increa... [2] https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/sites/decisionsciences/files/files/Defaults_and_Donation_Decisions_-_Transplantation.pdf https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/sites/decisionsciences/files/f...
- viraptor 6y ago
  Unless we cross some significant number of opt-outs though and it starts to matter in organ availability statistics, what's the point of that punishment? If we have enough donors overall, I'd love my organs to go anywhere useful - regardless of who receives them. Let's not open the gates for more conditions in the future, because I'm sure some people would enjoy "donate my organs as long as there recipient is not X".
  - tareqak 6y ago
    I guess a compromise could be the following: upon receiving an organ donation, the recipient is asked to consider donating their own organs once again.