Within a presumed consent organ donation system... See Quenstion.

[GinandTonic]

Within an organ donation system arranged along the lines of opt out or "presumed consent", should people have the option of refusing their organs from those who opt out of the system?

 

[Ecofarm]

I would like my ashes to be placed in several organic gardens around the world. That way, my molecules/atoms can be 'alive' again asap and without too much chemical crap. I suppose there's plenty of ash even without the organs, so consent should be presumed. We get the option via driver's liscense, IIRC.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, I don't mind a system where you can donate your organs to someone specifically, but I don't like the idea of refusing organs to those who didn't opt in. I can see the 'fairness' of it, sure, but I also wouldn't want my medical system to refuse to pay for the medical care of those who refused to pay taxes, etc.

If you have universal coverage, you have universal coverage.

An 'opt out' system is so much better at getting organs anyway, that it's amazing. My region forces us to chose an opting when we get health insurance. There's no pressure for which choice to make, just that you have to make a choice. There's a large level of opt in, in such a system.

 

[Camikaze]

I don't really think an opt out system is the best. What would be better, IMO, is making signing up for organ donation a lot easier. Here is it a simple question on your driver's licence form. Yes or No. So that would get a lot more people to be agree to donate their organs on death, say, forcing them to go to some registry to apply to be a donor. Not that I know how the system's of other countries really work with people agreeing to donation, but I reckon it would be much better to streamline the system than to stigmatise those that make what is essentially a personal choice. And it's better for organ donation to be seen as a proactive and positive thing rather than the opposite being a bad thing.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I think the costs (inefficient organ distribution, sick people not getting organs, extra complications in the system) outweigh the benefits (somehow forcing people to donate their organs).

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I think "opt out, with the catch that anyone whose current status is opting out can't get transplants or transfusions" is the way to go, since anyone who opts out on religious grounds won't want organs either.

 

[JohnRM]

I have opted to be an organ donor. I am not going to worry too much about where they go now and I won't have the option of worrying about it then. Sometimes, you just have to do the good deed without condition. In this circumstance, you have to be generous to these people now so that they might in turn decide to be generous to others, later.

 

[GenMarshall]

I'd be against the entire "opt out, with the catch that anyone whose current status is opting out can't get transplants or transfusions" since I do and perhaps others would want a replacement organ in the far future in the event that it does happens. It only serves to punish the person opting out.

 

[lovett]

And it's better for organ donation to be seen as a proactive and positive thing rather than the opposite being a bad thing.

Why?

That is to say, if the latter saves more lives than the former, what makes the former better?

 

[GinandTonic]

I'd be against the entire "opt out, with the catch that anyone whose current status is opting out can't get transplants or transfusions" since I do and perhaps others would want a replacement organ in the far future in the event that it does happens. It only serves to punish the person opting out.

The issue is not if under presumed consent the refuseniks should be denied transplants. It is if under a presumed consent system should donors have the option of refusing their organs from refuseniks.

 

[Camikaze]

Why?

That is to say, if the latter saves more lives than the former, what makes the former better?

You aren't a bad person if you don't want your organs given to someone else when you die. You are a good person if you do.

Making those that opt out seem like bad people is not really a good thing. And by the same token, making those that do donate their organs seem like normal people diminishes from their positive decision.

Positive reinforcement > Negative reinforcement.

 

[Karalysia]

No opt-out. Mandatory organ donation upon death. You don't need it once you die, your organs could save lives, keeping them would be selfish.

 

[taper]

I'm 26 and I've already made it clear to my family that I want full body donation when I go. My sister has done the same. I will respect the wishes of those who want to keep their body intact after death, but I strongly encourage any type of donation.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think "opt out, with the catch that anyone whose current status is opting out can't get transplants or transfusions" is the way to go, since anyone who opts out on religious grounds won't want organs either.

I'm on board with this. Seems like an altogether-in/altogether-out system should make things easy for people.

 

[Kerozine]

Some unnecessary vitriol ITT..

 

[El_Machinae]

I think "opt out, with the catch that anyone whose current status is opting out can't get transplants or transfusions" is the way to go, since anyone who opts out on religious grounds won't want organs either.

What if no one else needs the suddenly available organs? Can a person who opted out get those organs, then?

 

[SG-17]

I chose not to be an organ donor. That said I support cloning organs to use instead of forcing people to donate. I'd rather receive a blank slate cloned organ than one from someone who recently died.

 

[Shadylookin]

Anyone who opts out should move to the back of the line and be bumped out of the way when someone who didn't needs an organ.

So essentially if there's spare organs and no donors need them then give them to opt-outs so they won't go to waste, but preference should definitely go to those who stayed in the system.

I don't see it as a punishment to opt-outs so much as a club where only people that paid their dues can get in. Perhaps I'm biased though since I am an opt-in organ donor.

 

[GenMarshall]

The issue is not if under presumed consent the refuseniks should be denied transplants. It is if under a presumed consent system should donors have the option of refusing their organs from refuseniks.

Refused or not, the donors will take the organs from refuseniks. No ifs, ands, or butts.

No opt-out. Mandatory organ donation upon death. You don't need it once you die, your organs could save lives, keeping them would be selfish.

It's my body and I don't need someone flipping deciding what to do with my body when I am gone! Forcing someone to donate after death would be selfish and hates freedom.

 

[Karalysia]

It's my body and I don't need someone flipping deciding what to do with my body when I am gone! Forcing someone to donate after death would be selfish and hates freedom.

Your right to your body begins after birth and ends after death. In between it is yours. But before and after you have no right to it.