Mandatory Organ Donation

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
1337goose
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:44 am UTC

Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby 1337goose » Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:23 am UTC

There's really not much to explain here. Upon hearing a presentation at school/on TV/I don't remember anymore regarding organ donation, I began to think about an idea for mandatory organ donation. I personally think it would be a great idea, and I don't see why no one has ever seriously considered it.

Simply put, everyone who dies has anything in their body useful harvested and kept for any need of transplants. Bear in mind, this would pretty much put an end to cemeteries and burials of any kind.

What do you guys think about it? Good idea? Bad idea?

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby BlackSails » Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:25 am UTC

Good idea, but people dont like it.

Anyway, going from opt-in to opt-out organ donation has been shown to dramatically raise donation rates, while still allowing people who object to not donate their bodies.

User avatar
poxic
Eloquently Prismatic
Posts: 4686
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:28 am UTC
Location: Left coast of Canada

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby poxic » Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:31 am UTC

Some people will have issues with it, fer damn sure. Some religious practises don't accept it, and others have rules around when it is acceptable (same link).

I'd like to see the "default to donor unless you've specifically requested otherwise" (opt-out). It's in place in some countries, unlike Canada's opt-in system where you have to submit the paperwork to become a donor. Since a big chunk of people don't really care enough to submit paperwork either way, opt-out leads to more organ donation. (Wikipedia says this isn't necessarily the case, though, or not always so.)
TEAM SHIVAHN
Pretty much the best team ever

And the day came when the risk it took to remain tight inside the bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom.
- Anais Nin, writer (21 Feb 1903-1977)

User avatar
1337goose
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:44 am UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby 1337goose » Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:47 am UTC

poxic wrote:Some people will have issues with it, fer damn sure. Some religious practises don't accept it, and others have rules around when it is acceptable (same link).


I know many religious people have issues with this, but why should that matter? I'm trying to be sensitive, but it really is idiotic and selfish. You both made reference to the opt-out system (I live in Canada, so we an opt-in policy), though I can't think of any legitimate reason (I'm sorry, but religious beliefs are not legitimate reasons in life-or-death scenarios) where a person would choose to not have their organs donated.

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby BlackSails » Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:01 am UTC

You dont get to choose what reasons are legitimate for other people

ablasdel
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:21 am UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby ablasdel » Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:13 am UTC

BlackSails wrote:You dont get to choose what reasons are legitimate for other people


I'd say he can do it all he likes but he is going to get something of a unpleasant backlash when he proposes it to the masses.


1337goose wrote:I'm trying to be sensitive, but it really is idiotic and selfish.


Lots of people are selfish. There is nothing illegal about this. Let them choose for themselves.

Attempting to force people to do something almost always takes more effort that it is worth. Just structure your system in such a way that those who don't care happen to fall on the side of helping others (opt out) and you have a workable system.

I would bet that the lives saved by a forced system would be only slightly more than an opt out. (I can't find an example of a forced system for data comparisons though)

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:20 am UTC

1337goose wrote:(I'm sorry, but religious beliefs are not legitimate reasons in life-or-death scenarios)

I wonder how you feel many hospitals or spouses/partners make their decisions pertaining to life-or-death scenarios.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

ocdscale
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:27 am UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby ocdscale » Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:34 am UTC

I think I'd prefer to live in a society with mandatory organ donation because I like the idea it represents. Our bodies, no longer of use to us, will serve the community for the greater good.

However, at this point, I really don't want to see this forced on anyone. Religious objections to (personal) organ donation are fine with me. Neither breaks my pocket nor picks my back. I have nothing against someone who says to me: "I'm not comfortable with organ donation, my belief is that my deity frowns on this sort of thing, you go ahead, I can't do it." It's no different to me than "I feel squeamish about this."
Calling such reasons illegitimate, idiotic, and selfish? To paraphrase Voltaire, in speaking against fanaticism, let us not imitate the fanatics. Let us assuage their ills and pour drop by drop into their souls the divine balm of toleration, which they would reject with horror if it were shoved down their throats with short-sighted insults.

Opt-out instead of opt-in sounds like a great idea to me.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby nitePhyyre » Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:01 am UTC

Wait, wait. In Canada we have to file forms to become organ donors? I thought we just had to sign the back of the medicare card. Could someone tell me how to become an organ donor? I live in Quebec. Thanks.

I'm sure google can find that for you without derailing the thread further.

-Az
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

Sharlos
Posts: 720
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:26 am UTC
Location: Straya

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Sharlos » Mon Jan 25, 2010 12:59 pm UTC

When I die, my body belongs to my next of kin, not the government, so no. You don't get to decide what to do with my body.

As for religion not being a 'legitimate' argument, from the perspective of someone who believes that religious stuff, I'd imagine eternal salvation is infinitely more important than some persons temporary stay on earth. But either way you don't get to choose just because you don't share their beliefs.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Azrael » Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:47 pm UTC

Sharlos wrote:When I die, my body belongs to my next of kin, not the government, so no. You don't get to decide what to do with my body.

Well, the government can/does (depending on nationality) tax your estate after you die, but the key criteria there is that the estate has monetary value that is being treated as income. Currently most governments take strong and active measures to prevent newly deceased corpses from being allowed to have such monetary value.

Regardless, I think it's a terrible idea. The callousness displayed in decreeing that religion is not a legitimate reason for anything is astounding -- while one can certainly disagree with religion vehemently, you don't get to dictate a secular existence onto anyone anymore than they get to require piety from you.

stevey_frac
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:27 pm UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby stevey_frac » Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:17 pm UTC

I firmly agree with the opt-out system. Peoples lives could be saved by harvesting the organs of those who don't care enough one way or the other.

But mandatory organ donation will just cause more trouble then it's worth.
__Kit wrote:
Also, who the fuck wants to be normal? You got one lifetime, why be like everyone else?

User avatar
duckshirt
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:41 am UTC
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby duckshirt » Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:58 pm UTC

1337goose wrote:Upon hearing a presentation at school/on TV/I don't remember anymore regarding organ donation,

Was it on NPR? I heard some stuff about it on there they other day. They talked about new policies they're using out in Israel and Iran and stuff, such as giving preference in organs to patients who are organ donors themselves (I'm assuming they mean people who had the organ donor thing filled out before they knew they needed an organ), and stuff.

I think part of the problem is that people pretty much agree that organ donating is a good idea, but people don't all bother to fill them out. I just now filled mine out after having my license for like, 4 years now.

In addition, you should at least make sure someone knows you're an organ donor, because when someone dies suddenly, they usually ask the family if it's alright to take the organs, even if they see the organ donor box checked, and if the family has any doubt at all, the easy answer is 'no.'

So, in conclusion, I think if people are really informed and encouraged, there will be lots of organ donors, and there won't really be a need for mandatory organ donation... if it's really someone's dying wish that their body is completely preserved, we can grant it...
lol everything matters
-Ed

Ouiser
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 4:25 pm UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Ouiser » Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:19 pm UTC

Some of the attitudes in this thread have completely soured my attitude towards organ donation. It definitely requires an opt-out at the very least.

juststrange
Posts: 296
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:57 pm UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby juststrange » Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:34 pm UTC

I speak only for the US here.

As far as I can tell, regardless of one religion, its the American Mentality to be weary of ones government. We were founded on revolt, and have been trying to keep it that was (or atleast my circle has). I'd say mandatory organ donation crosses that line into "Big Gov't" which is bad. Also, have you seen the folks in charge? The folks keeping track of your organs would be the same folks at the MVA and TSA.

On a personal level, I have chosen to donate all my organs, with the current exception of my corneas. This may change at a later date. As it stands, eyes creep me out. But I should be allowed to make that choice. For the government to tell someone thier reasonable beliefs are not valid for this arguement is cold and scary. You can make the argument that NOT donating organs is killing the people who need them. But this leads into the "passive killing" through inaction vs "active killing" through action debate. You may solve the problem, but at what cost.


Also, most importantly I think, when Donations are Mandatory, they are no longer Donations, they are Fees.

User avatar
1337goose
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:44 am UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby 1337goose » Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:50 pm UTC

juststrange wrote: On a personal level, I have chosen to donate all my organs, with the current exception of my corneas. This may change at a later date. As it stands, eyes creep me out. But I should be allowed to make that choice. For the government to tell someone thier reasonable beliefs are not valid for this arguement is cold and scary.


This isn't accusatory, I'm just curious. You don't want to donate your eyes to someone because they creep you out? Why does that make any difference? Why do we have rights over our bodies when we die? I know why we have rights over our bodies when we are alive, but aren't these are moot once we've passed away?

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Azrael » Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:58 pm UTC

1337goose wrote:Why do we have rights over our bodies when we die? I know why we have rights over our bodies when we are alive, but aren't these are moot once we've passed away?
For your proposal the question really becomes why would the government have any claim, instead of your relatives?

Especially in the US, the government's claim over one's person is extraordinarily limited. The military draft is no longer considered acceptable nor viable, health care is primarily the individual's responsibility and there are no government-sponsored postmortem provisions for the general population. Although the last two become the government's responsibility in the case of the poor, unclaimed fatalities, prisoners, or those who become wards of the state for medical reasons (etc), even then it's typically the individual state that carries the burden, not a Federal jurisdiction. Furthermore, no reasonable person would suggest that we should start such a program carried solely by those populations.

Lastly, organ harvest has to begin nearly immediately postmortem, in a very sophisticated hospital setting with an entire team of professionals. But people have this nasty habit of dying in an unscheduled fashion.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:08 pm UTC

1337goose wrote:I know why we have rights over our bodies when we are alive, but aren't these are moot once we've passed away?

I don't think you've been reading what people have been saying. Part of our 'rights' as individuals includes how we handle OUR dead. If I have a religious obligation to bury my father with his organs picked in jars and his body packed in caustic salt, then YOU (government, ambulance driver preparing to harvest organs, what have you) are violating MY rights. I'm not saying I agree with the notion of wasting all those bodies, by all means, soylent green it up, but you have to understand that just because you find this practice acceptable doesn't mean everyone does, or has to.
Personally, I'd like to see increased funding for stem cell therapies that render organ donation obsolete.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 3:54 pm UTC
Location: Cambs., UK

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Admiral Valdemar » Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:43 pm UTC

I do enjoy watching people justify not helping fellow men by appealing to icky factors or superstitions. It always makes me feel my fellow men are more enlightened and liberal nowadays. Fuck helping that girl with malformed kidneys. My fairy tale book says I have to be whole, or my soul will burn for eternity! You're free to believe that stuff, as I'm free to tell you you're an arrogant superstitious fool. Ditto for the "My kin own my body after death". Prove it.

It never ceases to amaze me how grossly stupid and selfish people can be over matters of, literally, life and death. I don't mind general ignorance when it's benign, but when it means denying a person a chance at life, well, fuck that.

Opt-out system. If you have reservations over being a decent human being, by all means opt the hell out. The funny thing is how people somehow decry this system when no freedom has been removed, just because now they have to spend two minutes telling the government they don't want to have their organs used for anything else. Holy shit, what a horribly totalitarian system of evil! Like universal healthcare itself, but then given how hard America is fighting that system (communism to help less fortunate people, dontchaknow) I shouldn't be that surprised over this issue.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:47 pm UTC

Admiral Valdemar wrote:It never ceases to amaze me how grossly stupid and selfish people can be over matters of, literally, life and death. I don't mind general ignorance when it's benign, but when it means denying a person a chance at life, well, fuck that.

I don't disagree, but I'm curious if anyone here knows if there is a correlation to religious beliefs and organ donation. More specifically, is there is an inverse correlation between 'amount of faith' and 'likelihood of being a donor'.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 3:54 pm UTC
Location: Cambs., UK

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Admiral Valdemar » Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:49 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:I don't disagree, but I'm curious if anyone here knows if there is a correlation to religious beliefs and organ donation. More specifically, is there is an inverse correlation between 'amount of faith' and 'likelihood of being a donor'.


Very good question. I'd love to see if there's a study on this along with political leanings (the old issue of "most murderers vote Republican" etc.).

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Azrael » Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:14 pm UTC

Admiral Valdemar wrote:... as I'm free to tell you you're an arrogant superstitious fool. Ditto for the "My kin own my body after death". Prove it.
You'd have to be willfully ignorant to believe anything else. Modern law is written as such, precedent is centuries old and most tellingly, people are required by the government to properly disposition the bodies of their relatives after death at their own expense, under the penalty of prosecution for doing it wrong.

Opt-out system. If you have reservations over being a decent human being, by all means opt the hell out. The funny thing is how people somehow decry this system when no freedom has been removed...
You should realize that no one here has derided an opt-out system (the opposite in fact), so while your rant might lower your blood pressure, it's of no meaningful relevance.

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby BlackSails » Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:17 pm UTC

http://ndt.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/conte ... /13/8/1949

Its the only paper I found that directly related, but its not very powerful.

User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 3:54 pm UTC
Location: Cambs., UK

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Admiral Valdemar » Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:29 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:You'd have to be willfully ignorant to believe anything else. Modern law is written as such, precedent is centuries old and most tellingly, people are required by the government to properly disposition the bodies of their relatives after death at their own expense, under the penalty of prosecution for doing it wrong.


Wrong. For the last couple hundred years there have been various rulings that no one owns your body after death, but that the State can deal with it should you not explicitly divulge in a will what you want carried out with your corpse. In other circumstances, the government can take your body regardless of what the relatives wish e.g. for investigations or reasons of national security.

You should realize that no one here has derided an opt-out system (the opposite in fact), so while your rant might lower your blood pressure, it's of no meaningful relevance.


And yet people have expressed the very views I was attacking, thus making my rant entirely relevant.

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby BlackSails » Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:35 pm UTC

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Wrong. For the last couple hundred years there have been various rulings that no one owns your body after death, but that the State can deal with it should you not explicitly divulge in a will what you want carried out with your corpse. In other circumstances, the government can take your body regardless of what the relatives wish e.g. for investigations or reasons of national security.


The government can also shoot you dead for reasons of national security. All that proves is that for certain situations, the government is allowed to violate your rights.

User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 3:54 pm UTC
Location: Cambs., UK

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Admiral Valdemar » Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:43 pm UTC

BlackSails wrote:
The government can also shoot you dead for reasons of national security. All that proves is that for certain situations, the government is allowed to violate your rights.


Quite, but my point was that no one inherently owns you after death, nor should it really matter that much for this issue anyway, since it is a choice you should be making in life. If you're really that serious about an issue, then one would sign the relevant form in the here and now. To some, this seems too much, though.

The bigger issues are medical ethics ones such as will a surgeon try and save a donor patient as hard as someone who isn't in the system if he knows a certain organ is in dire need at the time?

User avatar
JBJ
Posts: 1263
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:20 pm UTC
Location: a point or extent in space

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby JBJ » Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:55 pm UTC

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Quite, but my point was that no one inherently owns you after death, nor should it really matter that much for this issue anyway, since it is a choice you should be making in life. If you're really that serious about an issue, then one would sign the relevant form in the here and now. To some, this seems too much, though.

Good set of articles dealing with this issue.
In summary, the rights and duty to possess and dispose of a body falls first on the executor of the deceased's estate, if no executor is specified, generally the next of kin. The third article in that series goes into more detail about tissue and organ removal.

Edit - For the record, I am an organ donor. I also intend to be cremated. Whatever they take before they turn me into ash I'm not going to miss. However, I am against an opt-out system and in favor of the current opt-in system. It errs on the side of caution. Otherwise it's like asking for forgiveness instead of permission.
Last edited by JBJ on Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:01 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
So, you sacked the cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker?
The second cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker I've sacked since the sixth sitting sheet slitter got sick.

juststrange
Posts: 296
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:57 pm UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby juststrange » Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:57 pm UTC

Admiral your views taken in context with your Avatar terrify me. Just sayin.

The organ donor folks that Ive spoken to explicitly state that you are no more likely to be denied care if you are a donor. That is, they won't quit working on you earlier if you are a donor (bleeding to death scenario, not coma scenario). I tend to believe that since doctors are the most death anxious people out there (on average). In a way, if you die, they fail at some part of thier job. Besides, in emergency situations they tend to be working on you, not reading over your ID and decoding however your state puts it on there.

Really as far as I can tell, regardless whats on the card, they are going to ask your next of kin. So please, if you are organ donors, please have an open conversation with those folks so they too know your intentions!

User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 3:54 pm UTC
Location: Cambs., UK

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Admiral Valdemar » Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:00 pm UTC

juststrange wrote:Admiral your views taken in context with your Avatar terrify me. Just sayin.


I go to work with a manpurse with the Umbrella, Inc. logo on too. Given I work in biotech R&D for the eeeeevil Big Pharma industry, I see it as irony given my otherwise liberal persona. You get a cookie.

The organ donor folks that Ive spoken to explicitly state that you are no more likely to be denied care if you are a donor. That is, they won't quit working on you earlier if you are a donor (bleeding to death scenario, not coma scenario). I tend to believe that since doctors are the most death anxious people out there (on average). In a way, if you die, they fail at some part of thier job. Besides, in emergency situations they tend to be working on you, not reading over your ID and decoding however your state puts it on there.

Really as far as I can tell, regardless whats on the card, they are going to ask your next of kin. So please, if you are organ donors, please have an open conversation with those folks so they too know your intentions!


That's what I hear too, but the issue inevitably always crops up with this topic. If you're worth more dead and in pieces, many materialist people will see that as what the hospital wants, almost like they assume all people are out to dick others over getting the monies like some damned gangsta stereotype.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Azrael » Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:09 pm UTC

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Azrael wrote:You should realize that no one here has derided an opt-out system (the opposite in fact), so while your rant might lower your blood pressure, it's of no meaningful relevance.
And yet people have expressed the very views I was attacking, thus making my rant entirely relevant.
You have confused an issue with mandatory for an issue with organ donation.

Regarding ownership, JBJ has cited that the estate owns the body. Feel free to offer contrary evidence.

User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 3:54 pm UTC
Location: Cambs., UK

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Admiral Valdemar » Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:28 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:You have confused an issue with mandatory for an issue with organ donation.


As have others then, since I was addressing the voiced objections.

Regarding ownership, JBJ has cited that the estate owns the body. Feel free to offer contrary evidence.


Why? It supports what I said also

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Azrael » Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:37 pm UTC

Seriously, go read the thread. No one has taken issue with opt-out.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Why? It supports what I said also
It really doesn't. It indicates that the primary right and responsibility is on the estate and the next of kin. The government is responsible only when the estate does not claim a body, and the estate can be billed for the state's expenses, if available. As for investigations, the government can keep right of possession only as long as is required for that investigation. All told it very, very firmly delineates the right of possession as falling to the family.

So, Joe dies in a hospital. Neither the government, nor the hospital has any right to claim that body unless the family fails to. And the hospital even has an additional layer of regulation requiring pre-death consent for anything it does.

User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 3:54 pm UTC
Location: Cambs., UK

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Admiral Valdemar » Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:57 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:Seriously, go read the thread. No one has taken issue with opt-out.


Which, if you read my objection, was not what I was referring to.

It really doesn't. It indicates that the primary right and responsibility is on the estate and the next of kin. The government is responsible only when the estate does not claim a body, and the estate can be billed for the state's expenses, if available. As for investigations, the government can keep right of possession only as long as is required for that investigation. All told it very, very firmly delineates the right of possession as falling to the family.

So, Joe dies in a hospital. The government has absolutely no right to claim that body unless the family fails to first.


I never said the government had the right to claim bodies for harvesting either. I said no one inherently owns your body. Duties for burial or cremation are another matter, and one I never contested at all.

Now, back to the topic at hand, I would love to know how many lives could be saved if the system was opt-out, not opt-in. Unfortunately, I don't see any actual figures from a cursory search, but I would vouch for a better waiting list situation in general given the number of people who seemingly don't mind becoming donors after they've gotten their use out of the body, yet are too lazy to register. I hear some states in the US have a simple tick box on driver's licences for this kind of thing. Can anyone confirm that?

User avatar
JBJ
Posts: 1263
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:20 pm UTC
Location: a point or extent in space

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby JBJ » Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:02 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:No one has taken issue with opt-out.

Actually, I kind of did. If something is irreversible, the default policy should be to take no action without permission.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:I hear some states in the US have a simple tick box on driver's licences for this kind of thing. Can anyone confirm that?
I believe in most states, yes. I can confirm that is true for Florida. For other states, not sure, but a short Google search yielded the registry for each state.
http://organdonor.gov/donor/registry.shtm
So, you sacked the cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker?
The second cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker I've sacked since the sixth sitting sheet slitter got sick.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Azrael » Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:03 pm UTC

Admiral Valdemar wrote:... [opt-out] is not what I was referring to ...no one inherently owns your body... I would love to know how many lives could be saved if the system was opt-out, not opt-in. ... I hear some states in the US have a simple tick box on driver's licences for this kind of thing. Can anyone confirm that?
1) No shit. The point being that since everyone up to that point had been agreeing with opt out (and thus, you) your rant was misplaced. BUT, thanks to JBJ's late addition, I guess you can be all precognitively angry and ranty at him.

2) Sure, no one owns it, but certain people have defined, hierarchical rights of possession and the duty to properly disposition the same. Wheee, semantics.

3) It's not a great start, but it's a start:
poxic wrote: ... opt-out leads to more organ donation. (Wikipedia says this isn't necessarily the case, though, or not always so.)
So the rates seen can/could/sometimes are twice as high with dissent v consent policies, but there is a lot more at hand than just the policy, as demonstrated in the link.

4) Yes, you have to fill out the organ donation section of the license renewal form, which contains the same information as the regular organ donation card.

User avatar
Mokele
Posts: 775
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:18 pm UTC
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Mokele » Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:06 pm UTC

Technical stuff time, which might give some space for folks to cool down:

1337goose wrote:Simply put, everyone who dies has anything in their body useful harvested and kept for any need of transplants. Bear in mind, this would pretty much put an end to cemeteries and burials of any kind.


A few notes:

1) A wide variety of things can prevent you from being an organ donor, with advanced age being a big one, and cancer being another. Auto accidents may leave some parts salvagable, but nobody wants a lung with a spark plug embedded in it. Infectious diseases of any sort are a big no-no. I don't have, on hand, the actual percentage of people who are even viable as donors, but it's *way* less than 100%.

2) We don't use anywhere near that much of the body. Not even close. Even if you take everything we can transplant, there's still a LOT left over. Burial will still be needed.

3) Sometimes, things can't be used - remember, the organs have to be transported *while alive* to the next person. This isn't much of a problem if you live in NYC, where there's bound to be *someone* nearby who needs everything you have, but in Nowhere, South Dakota, there might simply not be anyone within transportable distance who needs a cornea. Chances are *something* will be needed within transportable distance, but not necessarily *everything*.



Also, additional note - for those determined to be in some way useful as something beyond firewood or worm-food, ask your local medical school about body donation. It won't interfere with organ donation (that *always* takes precedence), and will allow you to contribute even if you die of some of the causes that prevent organ donation (cancer, extreme old age, etc.)
"With malleus aforethought, mammals got an earful of their ancestor's jaw" - J. Burns, Biograffiti

User avatar
mythago
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:27 pm UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby mythago » Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:43 pm UTC

Admiral Valdemar wrote: My fairy tale book says I have to be whole, or my soul will burn for eternity! You're free to believe that stuff, as I'm free to tell you you're an arrogant superstitious fool.


Oh dear. MY fairy tale book says that it is a mitzvah (good deed/commandment) to donate organs after death. I guess I should just throw out my organ-donor card since I wouldn't want to do anything based in silly superstition.

How about we pass laws requiring everyone eligible to donate blood to do so every eight weeks or face jail time? Donating blood IS a matter of life and death.

Or heck, let's forbid immediate burial; all bodies have to be donated to science. You think training the next generation of doctors and performing scientific experiments doesn't save lives?
three lines of plaintext
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:59 pm UTC

I don't think that's a fair straw man, but the point I believe Admiral V was trying to get at it "My, isn't it sad and silly and condemnable when people pray instead of giving their children antibiotics/insulin/food", and isn't that vaguely similar to not donating due to religious beliefs.

The difference is, of course, praying instead of accepting a cure/giving your child a cure is child abuse/neglect. Not donating your organs to save a life is a bit more morally conspicuous when talking about an individuals responsibilities.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Sheikh al-Majaneen
Name Checks Out On Time, Tips Chambermaid
Posts: 1075
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:17 am UTC
Location: couldn't even find coffee in copenhagen

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Sheikh al-Majaneen » Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:00 am UTC

I'm interesting in knowing why, for the people this applies to, organ donation is against your religion?

In my state we are asked when we are getting our drivers licenses whether or not we would like to be an organ donor. We probably check it off on the form.

A lot less hassle that way.

User avatar
mythago
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:27 pm UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby mythago » Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:23 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:I don't think that's a fair straw man, but the point I believe Admiral V was trying to get at it "My, isn't it sad and silly and condemnable when people pray instead of giving their children antibiotics/insulin/food", and isn't that vaguely similar to not donating due to religious beliefs.


I believe that if that was the point Admiral V was getting it he probably would have said that. BTW, the government's official site to encourage organ donation shows that most religions in the US do not object to organ donation (interestingly, the few that are listed as objecting are not Christian denominations):

http://organdonor.gov/donation/religious_views.htm

Regardless, the whole idea of mandatory organ donation is that the government has the absolute right to take possession of a person's remains for the Greater Good. I don't understand why this is supposed to be a sensible position, or why it's really any different from mandatory blood donation, or from certain hospitals' using anesthetized female patients for residents to practice pelvic exams on without their knowledge or consent.
three lines of plaintext
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests