Organ donation: opt in or opt out?

[Cu Chulainn]

The Opting-in system sounds to me like forcing someone to be a donor.

Regardless of how it sounds to you, it is factually not the case. It no more forces people to donate than an opt-in system forces people to not donate.

Fullstop, I was not the one that threw the word around.

I believe I quoted you using it in a bit of hyperbole.

I've already stated that I am uncomfortable having my body parts being in someone else's body after I passed on.

Why?

Wrong. I would accept an organ transplant

Don't you find this position to be rather hypocritical?

Wrong, the choice not to donate is neater irrational, immoral, nor selfish. Save the guilt trip for someone else.

I'm not guilt tripping anyone, merely stating an opinion. The logic behind it if you wish:

Spoiler :

Irrational: Without reason. There is no good reason to not donate outside of physical inability, medical or otherwise. Once one is deceased the organs become useless to them but have great value to others. If I possess something that is useless to me, but has great value to you, and I cannot profit from its sale, I have no rational reason to not give it to you.

Iimmoral: Morality is personal, granted. I believe that one's obligation to help someone increases as the cost to oneself decreases. As the actual cost of organ donation is zero, it logically follows that the obligation to donate (when possible) is infinite.

Selfish:"concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others" All the reasons for not donating are self serving. They place one's own comfort over the potential benefits to others. Such arguments are therefore selfish by definition.

 

[GenMarshall]

I believe I quoted you using it in a bit of hyperbole.

Sorry, but no. Again, I was not the one who brought up the word. Look in the previous posts and you will see that I did not brought in the word "Socialism" before you start claiming me of hyberboles.

Don't you find this position to be rather hypocritical?

Not the slightest. Besides, it's not hypocritical

Irrational: Without reason. There is no good reason to not donate outside of physical inability, medical or otherwise. Once one is deceased the organs become useless to them but have great value to others. If I possess something that is useless to me, but has great value to you, and I cannot profit from its sale, I have no rational reason to not give it to you.

It's not irrational to chose not to donate based on personal reason. Besides the point, humans arent rational in the first place. So it's kind of pointless to asume that humanity would operate in full perfict rationality.

Iimmoral: Morality is personal, granted. I believe that one's obligation to help someone increases as the cost to oneself decreases. As the actual cost of organ donation is zero, it logically follows that the obligation to donate (when possible) is infinite.

Who are you to tell me that I am immoral that I chose not to donate? It's my choice not to donate. There is no morality attached to it.

Selfish:"concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others" All the reasons for not donating are self serving. They place one's own comfort over the potential benefits to others. Such arguments are therefore selfish by definition.

Ok, now you have greatly offended me here. I'm no way selfish. I will tell you that I am a blood donor. Telling me that I am selfish because I dont want my organs to be donated is just flat out wrong. Not donating organs is not selfish.

I'm not guilt tripping anyone, merely stating an opinion. The logic behind it if you wish

Judging by your so called "logic" scales. You are using guilt tripping mechanics to penetrate into a person's emotional center.

 

[Miles Teg]

Ok, now you have greatly offended me here. I'm no way selfish. I will tell you that I am a blood donor. Telling me that I am selfish because I dont want my organs to be donated is just flat out wrong. Not donating organs is not selfish.

CG, there's no need to be so defensive. I understand that you're upset that some of us have been harsh to you, but let's go through this step by step.

1. You are going to die. Hopefully, you won't die until your organs are shriveled up prunes that aren't good for anything, but accidents happen.
2. If you die and your organs are still useful, donating them could save lives.
3. You are not an organ donor.
4. You aren't, apparently, because you find the idea of your organs in other people to be squicky.
5. Combining 2 and 4, we come to the conclusion that you're placing your own wants about the wants and needs others.

That's selfishness down to a tee. Now, that's okay by itself. We're all selfish at times, and we all put ourselves ahead of others. We may debate about the extent or the gravity of our selfishness, but that doesn't change the fact that not donating your organs is selfish. It's up to you to decide if that's this particular act of selfishness is morally justifiable or not. I don't think so, and you do, but it's still selfish in the strictest sense of the word.

 

[MobBoss]

CG, there's no need to be so defensive.

Well, yeah, there is. You have been calling people names who make his choice all throughout the thread.

1. You are going to die. Hopefully, you won't die until your organs are shriveled up prunes that aren't good for anything, but accidents happen.

True, but fatal accidents, not so much. And being fatal, can often render said organs into a not so usable state.

Thus...there are no gurantees of anything.

2. If you die and your organs are still useful, donating them could save lives.

Again, possibly. There are no gurantees.

You also have no idea who is getting your 'organ'. They could end up being a serial killer, and your donation enabled them to keep on killing by keeping them alive!! Granted thats a rather silly idea, but it is indeed possible, albeit not that probable. But the fact does remain that as people are indeed people, then bad people as well as good people are in line to receive organs, arent they? Of course they are. There is no 'morality check' involved there, and since you have utterly no clue as to who gets your organ, the life you could be saving could end up being a very bad person regardless.

3. You are not an organ donor.

Which isnt a sin, immoral, against the law or anything like that.

Volunteer means exactly that.

4. You aren't, apparently, because you find the idea of your organs in other people to be squicky.

And there isnt anything wrong with that. Some people get creeped out by spiders. Some heights. It doesnt make them bad people.

5. Combining 2 and 4, we come to the conclusion that you're placing your own wants about the wants and needs others.

However, as I pointed out earlier in the thread everyone alive does this to some extent. Even you. Its just this particular area that you have chosen to give judgement on. Doing so solely gives no appreciation for the rest of what a person does with their life, and who they affect and to what degree.

That's selfishness down to a tee.

And probably not anymore so that you or anyone else shows on a daily basis. I am sure I could pick your own life apart to make the same observation in many different areas of your own life. By what right do you sit in judgement over others on this particular issue?

Now, that's okay by itself. We're all selfish at times, and we all put ourselves ahead of others. We may debate about the extent or the gravity of our selfishness, but that doesn't change the fact that not donating your organs is selfish. It's up to you to decide if that's this particular act of selfishness is morally justifiable or not. I don't think so, and you do, but it's still selfish in the strictest sense of the word.

But its not anymore selfish than what anyone else does either.

Again, its voluntary. Its not immoral to opt out. Let it go. Bullying people into compliance is probably even more immoral than not opting in to begin with.

 

[Truronian]

Actually, a dead person continues to have influence over their estate even after death by virtue of their will.

Please tell me you understand that.

A will dictates the change in ownership that takes place upon the will maker's death. In theory it takes effect immediately, so their influence ends with their death.

And yet, dead Elvis continues to make millions of dollars a year even decades after his death.....

The money goes to Lisa Marie Presley IIR, not Elvis. It's pretty shocking really, songs should become public domain upon a performer's death IMO.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

Besides the point, humans arent rational in the first place. So it's kind of pointless to asume that humanity would operate in full perfict rationality.

Indeed. Humans are not completely rational. However, I endeavor to be as rational as I possibly can as I believe doing so makes me a better person more often than not. I have been prone to emotional outbursts most of my life and they have never brought me anything but misery. I am at my worst when I am at my most emotional.

Who are you to tell me that I am immoral that I chose not to donate?

I said no such thing. I said that according to my personal beliefs, abstaining from organ donation is immoral. I was very careful to speak generically and point out that morality is personal. I could not have been more diplomatic without lying.

Ok, now you have greatly offended me here.

If you would like to explain to me the possible selfless reasons behind not donating I would be more than happy to listen. As is, I remain unable to think of any.

Judging by your so called "logic" scales. You are using guilt tripping mechanics to penetrate into a person's emotional center.

I don't even know what this means. I'm stating my opinions and trying to justify them with as much reason as I can muster. As you seem unwilling to back up, support, or even explain your positions and insist on dogmatically stating your opinion as fact I don't think this is going anywhere productive. I came here for an argument, and that's just contradiction!

 

[GenMarshall]

As you seem unwilling to back up, support, or even explain your positions and insist on dogmatically stating your opinion as fact I don't think this is going anywhere productive. I came here for an argument, and that's just contradiction!

Actually, I do back up and explain my position. However, it's not going to happen if you and anyone else keeps on bullying people into compliance and calling other people names.

I stated that I am uncomfortable with organ donation and I am sticking to my story. It's not dogmatic, it's my opinion and position on this matter! I'll direct you to MobBoss's response to you.

If my explanations dont satisfy you...

as MobBoss says...

/shrug

I'm not here for anyone's entertainment

 

[Cu Chulainn]

Actually, I do back up and explain my position. However, it's not going to happen if you and anyone else keeps on bullying people into compliance and calling other people names.

Crap. Do you think by attacking your opinion I'm attacking you? Totally not the case! Sometimes I get so wrapped up in a discussion I forget that not everyone approaches argumentation like I do. I have no reason whatsoever to think that you are a bad person, I just think your position is somewhat flawed and was interested to see how you defended it. Since you don't seem to like a more confrontational format, let's mix things up a bit. Forget about my position entirely and just focus on what you think. Would you care to elaborate on what about organ donation makes you uncomfortable or would you rather just leave it at that?

The biggest thing I don't understand is why you would be against donating but not care about accepting a transplant. It seems like if one part bothered you then the other naturally would as well. It also does seem a little hypocritical to me, like the way churches don't pay taxes but still expect firefighters to show up when their building catches. Why should someone be able to receive benefits from a system they are unwilling to pay into?

 

[Mise]

I think that anyone that opts out of organ donation for any reason is selfish and immoral.

Furthermore, people keep saying "religion religion religion", without telling me what part of their religion forbids organ donation. AFAIK, all major religions view organ donation favourably. See wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_organ_donation. I don't give a tiny rat's arse whether you think it's "icky" or unpleasant. Lots of things are icky and unpleasant, such as, for example, a child that dies because there is a shortage of viable organ donors. That seems to trump whatever "icky" little feelings you might have.

For me, the idea gives me the creeps. But I have a lot of medical reasons to reasonably be sure my organs would not be usable anyway.

That's no reason for you to opt out. How about you opt in, and then let the doctors decide whether your organs are viable or not?

People, this is a highly emotional and personal issue. Please try to discuss it without insulting each other. There is no right or wrong of it

Yes there is. Opting out is wrong. Let me ask you this: Is it a good, charitable act to voluntarily donate your organs after you die, in order for someone else to live?

- we all have our own individual moral compasses in this.

And yours is wrong.

 

[Miles Teg]

@Mobby

Good Golly Miss Molly. You must be all tuckered out after setting up all those strawmen only to to knock them down.

Just to clarify things here, I'm trying to establish some common ground with CG here. I think it's pretty obvious that his opinions on organ donation meet the dictionary definition of selfishness, and I'd like to proceed with the conversation from there.

Obviously, being selfish isn't the same thing as being a bad person. We're all selfish about a lot of things. For example, I could donate the time I have right now to serve out soup, but instead I'm here arguing with CG and Mobby. Selfish on my part. Once we've established that refusing to opt in to an organ donation system is selfish, then we can examine the morality of it to see if it's an immoral type of selfishness, or just a pedestrian kind.

 

[lovett]

No, not volunteering to donate an organ isnt an active decision to kill someone. You're treating it like it is, but thats simply not the case. Thats why this simply isnt a morality issue at all. You merely call it one because you want to force your will upon those that would rather not do it because you simply think its a great idea. However, so far, our society has treated such decisions over our bodies, alive or dead, as inviolate, and will continue to for the long foreseeable future.

Out of interest, if this is the case what imbues the Parable of the Good Samaritan with its moral meaning? It seems to me that we are meant to see the priest and the Levite as morally deficient, certainly compared to the Samaritan. Yet they have done nothing to actively cause harm; they have merely withheld help.

You are claiming that that means their actions are simply not a moral issue. Presumably under this conception of morality it is 'active' decisions alone that hold moral value, or dis-value. This seems odd; it does not give with a normal conception of morality. I'm sure you would decry the circumstances surrounding Kitty Genovese's rape and murder in 1964, but under this framework there is no reason to. The scores of onlooker who witnessed the event but did nothing hold no moral culpability; they are protected by their inaction, because only actions holds moral value. It's not hard to think of many more scenarios like this, from strolling past a child drowning in a swimming pool to refusing to give food to a starving man, when one is oneself fully fed.

For me these events have an irrevocable moral component, and I'd wager for most other people too. Unless you disagree you're going to need different criteria than 'active decision' to determine whether something is a moral issue.

 

[El_Machinae]

The probability of being an organ donor doesn't change the moral decision-making, because the decision is only a factor iff the organs are useful for harvest. One cannot volunteer or refuse to donate their useless organs to save a life (the local medical school would still appreciate the donation), one can only meaningfully choose to donate their useful organs.

And so, refusing to donate one's useful organs IS a moral question with a pretty clear answer.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I would like to point out that ontario has the most ******ed system EVER.

Its half opt-in, half nothing. That's right. We have a database registry. You sign up. Its not legal. All that means is when you die, they go to your family and ask if they think its ok, and say "He/she DID sign up to be an organ donor, but we still need your permission"

That's pretty much how Alberta does it. But we have a place on our health care cards where you can sign if you want to be an organ donor. My problem with this is that health care cards are also considered acceptable pieces of government-issued ID. In the past, a person signed the back of it as a matter of course, the way one would sign any card. There was nothing there about organ donation.

Now I cannot use this card as a piece of ID that carries a signature, because that is the ONLY place to sign it - if you want to be an organ donor, and I don't.

Crude hypothetical time! You have a button in front of you, and are told that if you push it you have a one in a billion chance that it will save someone's life. You could also NOT push it and have no chance. Do you believe both options are equally moral?

I'm not going to address hypotheticals that have no similarity to the issue we're discussing.

Out of curiosity, what makes it mean-spirited? I can understand the term judgmental. I've done some thinking on the matter, and come to the conclusion that people who refuse to opt-in to post-humous donations programs are making extremely immoral choices. Generally, terms like "judgmental" get thrown around when people get worked up about issues that don't directly affect them or their loved ones. I guess I'm guilty of that sin.

But what exactly makes it mean-spirited? The term "bastard" may have overly heated sense of words, due to the choices of some of the people in this thread, I acknowledge that, but I wouldn't call it mean-spirited; just an honest, if atypically frank assessment.

And of course, I stand by the description of people who refuse to donate their organs as "selfish". Paying more attention to one's fleeting feelings (I DON'T WANT MAH PARTS IN NO OTHER PEOPLES!) over the life or death of another human being is a textbook case of selfishness. Selfishness is not a crime in any jurisdiction that I am aware of, and is not even a moral failing when viewed through some philosophical view points.

For example, one way for CG to resolve some of the apparent moral problems is to become an Objectivist of some stripe, where selfishness is celebrated as a virtue and altruism regarded as a bad instinct. Of course, he may not choose to look into that option, but it would wrap up some of the apparent contradictions in his philosophy.

"Mean-spirited" is one of the politest words I chose to express what I think of your stance on this. How about simply MEAN? As in cruel, bullying, overbearing, antagonistic, verbally abusive, etc.

Yes, "bastard" is an unacceptable word in this case - consider that I'm saying that both as a poster and with my moderator hat on.

CivGeneral is not required to change his life or personal opinions to please other peoples' measure of "selfishness." It is reprehensible to keep hammering him with this word - he is simply expressing his personal preferences, and that does not make him a selfish person. It simply makes him himself.

As I said earlier...soylent green is people!!!

Or maybe that also sounds like Logans Run to a good bit as well.

Logan's Run did not have organ donation/harvesting in its storyline - either novel or movie. You may be thinking of the part of the movie where Box was killing and storing Runners for food, because the source of food it was originally supposed to harvest became unavailable. There was nobody left to change Box's programming, so it adapted as best it could.

That's no reason for you to opt out. How about you opt in, and then let the doctors decide whether your organs are viable or not?

How about you understand that the decision is mine to make? How about you understand that doctors are not infallible, and they do not know everything about a person's medical history, even with the dead person's information in front of them?

There is no right or wrong of it.

Yes there is. Opting out is wrong. Let me ask you this: Is it a good, charitable act to voluntarily donate your organs after you die, in order for someone else to live?

If I measured your life choices by my own standards, I'm sure I would find some of your choices to be morally wrong. But am I posting here, insulting you about it? No, I am not.

Yes, it's a charitable act to voluntarily donate your organs. But I give back to the community in other ways - I do a lot of volunteer work. My way of giving back does not at present include the wish to donate any part of my dead body.

we all have our own individual moral compasses in this

And yours is wrong.

Well, I don't think it is. My moral compass is right for me. Yours is right for you. But neither of us finds the other's to be right. Welcome to individuality.

 

[.Shane.]

As others have pointed out, some people would donate their organs if they could, but are not allowed to, for various reasons. They could have some illness that would cause havoc with the recipient of their organs. Or they might have traveled to a suspect area of Earth within a particular time-frame and therefore not be allowed to donate (ie. might be carrying some awful disease). Would you deny these people their own organ transplant, even if they can't reciprocate?

Ok, we can make an exception here.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The government does; trust me on that...

Not as much as you think... They often take much of people's inheritance money...

And, while I won't share my opinion on inheritances here as I'm not completely sure yet, one thing I will say, they do make a certain degree of sense. If I die with 1,000 dollars in cash and a healthy liver as the only things of value I have at death, it would make sense for me to want my 1,000 dollars to go to my son and not to wider society. The liver is useless to your family, but it has use to someone who is dying. Discounting potential religious reasons (Sorry Mise, but I won't try to force people to violate their religion no matter how unusual) I'm not so sure it should be allowed to not donate, any more than dodging the draft when they have it is illegal, however religious exceptions are and should be made (If we force people of pacifistic religions to fight, we've already lost the freedom we are fighting for, hence why it hasn't been and isn't done at least in the US.)

I get what Mobboss is saying about selfishness, however, the simple fact is, most selfishness, however wrong, is done to prevent inconvienience. For instance, that guy who died in a hospital is a good example. And he has his rights to die in his home. However, if anything is left to save a life after he's dead it should be used. And I assure you, if you don't want to do it, you won't care anymore once its done.

What about the person's peace of mind before death? What about the peace of mind of the family afterward?

As others have pointed out, some people would donate their organs if they could, but are not allowed to, for various reasons. They could have some illness that would cause havoc with the recipient of their organs. Or they might have traveled to a suspect area of Earth within a particular time-frame and therefore not be allowed to donate (ie. might be carrying some awful disease). Would you deny these people their own organ transplant, even if they can't reciprocate?

I think Shane has the right idea, but only with an opt-out system, as with an opt-in its too easy to just forget to do it.

And, I agree with you, if you can't give the organ, you can still receive one. If you won't give an organ, you can't receive one. Same thing with work and food

Then no doubt you have also left instructions in your will and made it known to your family and everyone else who will be involved in settling your affairs after your death that not only do you wish your organs to be donated, but that you wish the remainder of your body to be run through a Fremen deathstill (rendered for its water, which you won't need, being dead) and given to some drought-stricken little corner of Africa (or somewhere equally in need of every drop of water it can get) so a family can survive just a little longer. And then what's left of your body after all that should be rendered for fertilizer to help somebody's food garden grow, right?

Its not a bad idea and I don't care what happens to my body after I am dead but the difference is that an organ donation LITERALLY saves a life. I've seen it done. It doesn't just help, it saves!

People, this is a highly emotional and personal issue. Please try to discuss it without insulting each other. There is no right or wrong of it - we all have our own individual moral compasses in this.

Not everyone agrees with that, however, I will try to keep any comments that could be considered offensive at the inaction and not the poster

I wonder... if organ donation dropped off, would stem-cell research and cloning gain more favor?

Embryonic stem-cell research is evil as it involves the, at least I would consider it, killing an innocent child. Cloning is attempting to create life which should be illegal as only God can create.

I think that anyone that opts out of organ donation for any reason is selfish and immoral.

I would watch personal insults but I agree that not donating is selfish and immoral. I won't attack people, only the inaction.

Furthermore, people keep saying "religion religion religion", without telling me what part of their religion forbids organ donation. AFAIK, all major religions view organ donation favourably. See wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_organ_donation. I don't give a tiny rat's arse whether you think it's "icky" or unpleasant. Lots of things are icky and unpleasant, such as, for example, a child that dies because there is a shortage of viable organ donors. That seems to trump whatever "icky" little feelings you might have.

I agree with you, however, if there are any religious or moral reasons not to do it I support exceptions being made. I oppose allowing exceptions because "Its icky." And I still care alot more about the rights of the living then the rights of the dead.

That's no reason for you to opt out. How about you opt in, and then let the doctors decide whether your organs are viable or not?

I agree.

Yes there is. Opting out is wrong. Let me ask you this: Is it a good, charitable act to voluntarily donate your organs after you die, in order for someone else to live?

Again I agree.

And yours is wrong.

Well, its not in the Bible specifically so I won't go to absolutes but I'm pretty sure not donating your organs is not "Loving one another" or "Doing unto the least of these" so I agree its wrong.

Now I cannot use this card as a piece of ID that carries a signature, because that is the ONLY place to sign it - if you want to be an organ donor, and I don't.

May I ask why not?

"Mean-spirited" is one of the politest words I chose to express what I think of your stance on this. How about simply MEAN? As in cruel, bullying, overbearing, antagonistic, verbally abusive, etc.

CivGeneral is not required to change his life or personal opinions to please other peoples' measure of "selfishness." It is reprehensible to keep hammering him with this word - he is simply expressing his personal preferences, and that does not make him a selfish person. It simply makes him himself.

What about murderers then? (Not comparing CivGen to murderers, just wait a second.) I suppose they are just being themselves too?

Wrong, hence I just proved there is an absolute standard, certain people just don't agree on the standard. Most people agree murder is wrong (Barring abortion which we will not discuss here.) Not everyone agrees failing to donate is wrong, but I do.

Well, I don't think it is. My moral compass is right for me. Yours is right for you. But neither of us finds the other's to be right. Welcome to individuality.

See above. There is an absolute standard.

 

[Ajidica]

Keep it as opt-in. It isn't that huge of a deal. Of all the people who have their liscenses or permits at my school, all but a few are donors. (The ones who aren't oppose it on strong religous reasons.)
I'm for it. If I'm dead, I don't need those organs and I won't be missing them.

 

[civ_king]

Not as much as you think... They often take much of people's inheritance money...

And, while I won't share my opinion on inheritances here as I'm not completely sure yet, one thing I will say, they do make a certain degree of sense. If I die with 1,000 dollars in cash and a healthy liver as the only things of value I have at death, it would make sense for me to want my 1,000 dollars to go to my son and not to wider society. The liver is useless to your family, but it has use to someone who is dying. Discounting potential religious reasons (Sorry Mise, but I won't try to force people to violate their religion no matter how unusual) I'm not so sure it should be allowed to not donate, any more than dodging the draft when they have it is illegal, however religious exceptions are and should be made (If we force people of pacifistic religions to fight, we've already lost the freedom we are fighting for, hence why it hasn't been and isn't done at least in the US.)
*snip*
See above. There is an absolute standard.

$1,000 is way below the point at which inheritance tax starts

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, its not in the Bible specifically so I won't go to absolutes but I'm pretty sure not donating your organs is not "Loving one another" or "Doing unto the least of these" so I agree its wrong.

Jesus is the greatest post-mortem tissue donor of all time!

 

[GhostWriter16]

$1,000 is way below the point at which inheritance tax starts

I was simply using it to make a point

 

[MobBoss]

A will dictates the change in ownership that takes place upon the will maker's death. In theory it takes effect immediately, so their influence ends with their death.

Not exactly. An estate can be held in trust until the conditions of the will are realized...for example, wills often contain a proviso that indicates someone must graduate college prior to receiving their inheritance.

So what happens to the estate? It get held and managed by a trustee until the conditions of the will are realized.

A will often also includes the testators desires as regards to their final remains, i.e. funeral arrangements, cremation, etc. So yes, a person can indeed continue influence past their death with a well written will.

The money goes to Lisa Marie Presley IIR, not Elvis.

No, it doesnt. In fact, it hasnt for a long while now. It goes to the holder(s) of the Elvis image/lexicon who just recently put the whole catalog up for sale for the tidy sum of half a billion dollars. Lisa Marie Presley sold her rights/claim to the continuing estate off long ago.