5 ms·

The concern is, organs are most useful when the donor is still a little alive, which could affect the incentives in a hospital: You might be in a critical state

The concern is, organs are most useful when the donor is still a little alive, which could affect the incentives in a hospital: You might be in a critical state and someone else really needs an organ from someone like you. On the other hand if most people are donors by default there should be sufficient supply, easing this pressure.

EdwardDiego 5y ago
...well, that's a rather paranoid bit of speculation that assumes that doctors are inherently unethical.
- toyg 5y ago
  Sadly in the UK we’ve had a bunch of instances of malpractice where doctors came off as fundamentally unethical. Add to it that state bureaucracy can often feel cruel and heartless, and you can understand why people might be suspicious.
3grdlurker 5y ago
I was actually referring to the pushback centering around the consent argument, but in any case: > You might be in a critical state and someone else really needs an organ from someone like you. How often does it actually happen that an organ recipient and a matching potential donor who is in critical condition are in the exact same hospital at the same time? Is the concern for skewing the incentives real? I’m not even sure where the incentive is in your example—it’s just trading off one life for another. The hospital still wouldn’t be avoiding the potential death of a patient either way.
- samus 5y ago
  > I’m not even sure where the incentive is in your example—it’s just trading off one life for another. The issue is that the patient needing the organ might die before the potential donor. Edit: this is under the assumption that the potential donor is very likely to die of their current condition.