3 ms·

Very good article, my only objection is following: "Still, three people die in the UK every day while waiting for an organ. It should be compulsory, unless a p

Very good article, my only objection is following: "Still, three people die in the UK every day while waiting for an organ. It should be compulsory, unless a person refuses. Opt out, not opt in — like it is in other countries. If a person would accept an organ if they were dying, then they should register as an organ donor themselves. Who would rather die than accept an organ? Nobody should die waiting for a kidney that is buried in the ground, disintegrating." My problem with opt in automatically is that it works ethically in ideal world, but there is a also other side of the coin. In our world number of "accidents" could increase so certain wealthy people and their family members would get organs from suitable "donors". I am not implying that necessarily wealthy would do it on their own but, it is quite likely that certain black and gray market would be created. Similar like cases of stolen children during the birth, while doctors were pronouncing them as dead.

Azrael3000 5y ago
I disagree. If you are willing to kill a person why would you care whether the person willingly agreed to a donation? You could also just fabricate a letter of consent. I live in a country with Opt-out and the only thing I think that should be changed is that you should be informed about it actively (e.g. a letter on your 18th birthday or so), even though that might reduce the numbers of donators.
Sebb767 5y ago
> but it is quite likely that certain black and gray market would be created. I see your point. But, on the other hand, having so few organs available is what makes black market actually work. In Germany we already had a scandal where people bought their way up the waiting list. Both situations are horrible, but I think that the opt-out solution is probably the better choice for avoiding/reducing black markets.
GuB-42 5y ago
I don't think someone ready to murder people to take their organs will have problem with finding ways around "consent". In fact, if more organs are available, it should limit the need for a black market. Imagine you are rich and in desperate need for an organ. You are not fundamentally evil, but you are really desperate, losing morality and ethics as the disease progressed. If someone can find you an organ before you get to murder then it will save the life of an innocent and your sanity, and maybe also your own life too, for the quicker response.
pbhjpbhj 5y ago
We allow wealth and resources from dead people to do the equivalent, when that could do far more good if redistributed. One $million cash-rich person dying might lose a pair of useful kidneys but children are dying from dehydration through diarrheal disease that's relatively easy to treat and that persons cash could save more than 1 or 2 people, probably 100s (or more) ... so why is the moral equivalence not made. Surely taking someone's stuff by default is less imposing of a state than taking someone's flesh by default?
jjgreen 5y ago
That's out of date, the UK is now "opt out" [1]. Oddly, this is still called "organ donation". [1] https://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/helping-you-to-decide/about-organ-donation/get-the-facts/ https://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/helping-you-to-decide/about...

Azrael3000 5y ago

I disagree. If you are willing to kill a person why would you care whether the person willingly agreed to a donation? You could also just fabricate a letter of consent. I live in a country with Opt-out and the only thing I think that should be changed is that you should be informed about it actively (e.g. a letter on your 18th birthday or so), even though that might reduce the numbers of donators.

Sebb767 5y ago

> but it is quite likely that certain black and gray market would be created. I see your point. But, on the other hand, having so few organs available is what makes black market actually work. In Germany we already had a scandal where people bought their way up the waiting list. Both situations are horrible, but I think that the opt-out solution is probably the better choice for avoiding/reducing black markets.

GuB-42 5y ago

I don't think someone ready to murder people to take their organs will have problem with finding ways around "consent". In fact, if more organs are available, it should limit the need for a black market. Imagine you are rich and in desperate need for an organ. You are not fundamentally evil, but you are really desperate, losing morality and ethics as the disease progressed. If someone can find you an organ before you get to murder then it will save the life of an innocent and your sanity, and maybe also your own life too, for the quicker response.

pbhjpbhj 5y ago

We allow wealth and resources from dead people to do the equivalent, when that could do far more good if redistributed. One $million cash-rich person dying might lose a pair of useful kidneys but children are dying from dehydration through diarrheal disease that's relatively easy to treat and that persons cash could save more than 1 or 2 people, probably 100s (or more) ... so why is the moral equivalence not made. Surely taking someone's stuff by default is less imposing of a state than taking someone's flesh by default?

jjgreen 5y ago

That's out of date, the UK is now "opt out" [1]. Oddly, this is still called "organ donation". [1] https://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/helping-you-to-decide/about-organ-donation/get-the-facts/ https://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/helping-you-to-decide/about...