3 ms·

That would create perverse incentives. After a car crash, hospitals could opt for neglecting strangers for the much bigger emotional reward of saving transplan

That would create perverse incentives. After a car crash, hospitals could opt for neglecting strangers for the much bigger emotional reward of saving transplant receptors that they have meet for months or years, and are much more emotionally involved with. The reward of a guaranteed transplant is not what overworked physicians should have in mind when should be focused into saving our lives. People would opt-out in mass to avoid that danger. Is as stupid as the "non-resuscitate" badge. If is forced, it also destroys the image of "each donor is a hero", that can be a small drop of comfort for his family. Even worse, it opens a door to turning young people in minorities with a compatible body into a target. It is strictly forbidden to monetize it in many countries for solid reasons.

gambiting 4y ago
Yeah except it's nonsense, because it doesn't happen in countries where everyone is a donor by default. No one working at the emergency department has any kind of access or knowledge to donor lists, the idea that "we need to let this guy die so we can get his kidneys" is something anyone would do is insane not because of how immoral it is, but because it's physically impossible for your normal doctor/nurse/emergency responder to even know that this guys kidneys would be a match for anyone needing them. It's not a test being done when your life is on the line, healthcare workers are overworked as it is, no one is checking your organ match when you came in from an accident. >>People would opt-out in mass to avoid that danger. So surely, if we assume what you say is true, the same risk exists if you are on the donor list voluntarily. Why would anyone be on it then? /s >>If is forced, it also destroys the image of "each donor is a hero", that can be a small drop of comfort for his family. I fail to see how it destroys that image. Your organs go and save someone else - you are still "a hero" to the receipient. Whether it was voluntary or not, doesn't change that(and if it does in your opinion change it, then surely witholding your permission must - by necessity - be one of the most evil acts you can do, no?) >>Even worse, it opens a door to turning young people in minorities with a compatible body into a target. Well now that's some complete dystopian sci-fi nonsense. What, doctors will go out and hunt young minority people on the streets to get their organs, to get that sweet emotional reward for successful transplants? Or who will do that, exactly? Please explain.
- pvaldes 4y ago
  > Well now that's some complete dystopian sci-fi nonsense. Yep, it is so dystopian that it would never happ... oh, wait a moment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Go... Of course China is a special case, not comparable to the situation in a western democratic count... oups! "In December 2009, a 2000 the chief pathologist at the L. Greenberg National Institute of Forensic Medicine Yehuda Hiss admitted taking organs from the corpses of Israeli soldiers, Israeli citizens, Palestinians and foreign workers without their families' permission" (Wikipedia)
  - gambiting 4y ago
    Yeah I'm sorry but I don't consider that a valid argument in this discussion, in fact I think you are making it in bad faith - clearly China would be doing this regardless of whether they have an opt-in or opt-out list for organ donations. And the Israeli actions were actions dictated by hate against Palestinians, not a public health policy. Again, they would have done the same regardless of whether they had an opt-in or opt-out policy.
    - pvaldes 4y ago
      Your argument is that laws are useless because somebody would still ignore them. But laws are often a deterrent to undesirable conduct. Even if some bad actors could just ignore them, they know that there are consequences for doing this. In such delicate issue as what is acceptable to do with a human corpse, a whitelist approach (only what is in this list is allowed) is much more reasonable than a blacklist approach (everything that is not in this list is allowed). People have the right to decide personally what can or can't be done with their corpses. Respecting their last wishes is necessary for keeping a high standard of human dignity in the hospitals. This means that can't be done by default.
      - gambiting 4y ago
        No, I just disagree with you on this super hard. Having it be the default option is far more reasonable, being opted out by default is a mad choice dictated by something I really don't understand. >>People have the right to decide personally what can or can't be done with their corpses. Of course. That's why they can opt out. >>Your argument is that laws are useless because somebody would still ignore them. No, I'm saying that china harvesting organs from prisoners is not linked to their healthcare policy on donor donation after death. Equally what Israel was doing isn't linked to their healthcare policy either. So bringing up both of those cases in this argument is done in bad faith, because these events(or in case of China - active penal policies) are not subject to or influenced by organ donation policy, and saying that making the list opt-in by default is/or can lead to situation like in China is nonsensical at best, malicious at worst.

gambiting 4y ago

Yeah except it's nonsense, because it doesn't happen in countries where everyone is a donor by default. No one working at the emergency department has any kind of access or knowledge to donor lists, the idea that "we need to let this guy die so we can get his kidneys" is something anyone would do is insane not because of how immoral it is, but because it's physically impossible for your normal doctor/nurse/emergency responder to even know that this guys kidneys would be a match for anyone needing them. It's not a test being done when your life is on the line, healthcare workers are overworked as it is, no one is checking your organ match when you came in from an accident. >>People would opt-out in mass to avoid that danger. So surely, if we assume what you say is true, the same risk exists if you are on the donor list voluntarily. Why would anyone be on it then? /s >>If is forced, it also destroys the image of "each donor is a hero", that can be a small drop of comfort for his family. I fail to see how it destroys that image. Your organs go and save someone else - you are still "a hero" to the receipient. Whether it was voluntary or not, doesn't change that(and if it does in your opinion change it, then surely witholding your permission must - by necessity - be one of the most evil acts you can do, no?) >>Even worse, it opens a door to turning young people in minorities with a compatible body into a target. Well now that's some complete dystopian sci-fi nonsense. What, doctors will go out and hunt young minority people on the streets to get their organs, to get that sweet emotional reward for successful transplants? Or who will do that, exactly? Please explain.

pvaldes 4y ago
> Well now that's some complete dystopian sci-fi nonsense. Yep, it is so dystopian that it would never happ... oh, wait a moment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Go... Of course China is a special case, not comparable to the situation in a western democratic count... oups! "In December 2009, a 2000 the chief pathologist at the L. Greenberg National Institute of Forensic Medicine Yehuda Hiss admitted taking organs from the corpses of Israeli soldiers, Israeli citizens, Palestinians and foreign workers without their families' permission" (Wikipedia)
- gambiting 4y ago
  Yeah I'm sorry but I don't consider that a valid argument in this discussion, in fact I think you are making it in bad faith - clearly China would be doing this regardless of whether they have an opt-in or opt-out list for organ donations. And the Israeli actions were actions dictated by hate against Palestinians, not a public health policy. Again, they would have done the same regardless of whether they had an opt-in or opt-out policy.
  - pvaldes 4y ago
    Your argument is that laws are useless because somebody would still ignore them. But laws are often a deterrent to undesirable conduct. Even if some bad actors could just ignore them, they know that there are consequences for doing this. In such delicate issue as what is acceptable to do with a human corpse, a whitelist approach (only what is in this list is allowed) is much more reasonable than a blacklist approach (everything that is not in this list is allowed). People have the right to decide personally what can or can't be done with their corpses. Respecting their last wishes is necessary for keeping a high standard of human dignity in the hospitals. This means that can't be done by default.
    - gambiting 4y ago
      No, I just disagree with you on this super hard. Having it be the default option is far more reasonable, being opted out by default is a mad choice dictated by something I really don't understand. >>People have the right to decide personally what can or can't be done with their corpses. Of course. That's why they can opt out. >>Your argument is that laws are useless because somebody would still ignore them. No, I'm saying that china harvesting organs from prisoners is not linked to their healthcare policy on donor donation after death. Equally what Israel was doing isn't linked to their healthcare policy either. So bringing up both of those cases in this argument is done in bad faith, because these events(or in case of China - active penal policies) are not subject to or influenced by organ donation policy, and saying that making the list opt-in by default is/or can lead to situation like in China is nonsensical at best, malicious at worst.