It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ sales

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

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby jules.LT » Sat Apr 09, 2011 8:52 am UTC

Wow, what a reaction.
I'll just say that my point was only in the case where the initial situation is an opt-out system (if think I read above that the rate of donation is >90% in Spain? I wouldn't be so sure about Iran).
As I said before: implement opt-out first, consider legalizing sales later. Then if people consider a dead person's organs part of his "estate" that is a problem for the opt-out system.
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

User avatar
Alder
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:20 am UTC
Location: Scotland

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby Alder » Sun Apr 10, 2011 12:33 pm UTC

KingofMadCows wrote:As for organ donation being opt-out, there are some more legitimate arguments against it since there are certain religious beliefs that are against organ donations. I believe Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Scientists, and the Shinto Buddhists are against it. It could be argued that making organ donations opt-out violates the religious freedom of these faiths.

Just for the record, Jehovah's Witnesses aren't against organ transplants. It's left to the choice of the individual.

I don't entirely follow how making organ donations opt-out would violate the religious freedoms of those who do have issues with it, though. That's the point of being able to opt out of it! Only those with genuinely strong feelings about the issue will care enough to do something about it, and the apathetic/disinterested majority won't bother.
Plasma Man wrote:I might have to get rid of some of my breadbins.

Kulantan wrote:I feel a great disturbance in the Fora, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and then kinda trailed off to a grumble.

User avatar
Whimsical Eloquence
Posts: 348
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 2:29 am UTC
Location: Ireland

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby Whimsical Eloquence » Sun Apr 10, 2011 2:15 pm UTC

Vanvier, your logic would appear to demand on the following premise: "That there is presently a shortage in x => Thus Method Y is the only possible way to alleviate shortage of x due to Felicific calculus of the suffering of not alleviating the shortage being far worse than the moral hazard of y."

The problems you point to are particular to the U.S. and other countries with a severe Organ Shortage, if this shortage were to be alleviated in other ways (the adoption of Opt-Out policy, technological advances) then your Calculus would seem defunct for those countries and its application to countries without such shortages seems incorrect from the start.
“People understand me so poorly that they don't even understand my complaint about them not understanding me.”
~ Soren Kierkegaard

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby Tirian » Sun Apr 10, 2011 4:29 pm UTC

Alder wrote:I don't entirely follow how making organ donations opt-out would violate the religious freedoms of those who do have issues with it, though. That's the point of being able to opt out of it!


I wouldn't express it in those words. What I would say is that there are people whose religious convictions are such that removing their organs after their death would produce at the least severe emotional distress in their mourners and their concern that the dead person's salvation has been jeopardized. (At the worst, their fears are justified and the dead person is entering the next world without their vital organs, of course, and while I don't believe such a thing I cannot disrespect someone for thinking so.) (And religious reservations are not necessarily the only reason to refuse to donate organs -- some people are just jerks.) Because of that, the risk (emotional or economic, however you like) of accidentally failing to remove someone's organs even though they wouldn't have minded is far less than the risk of accidentally removing someone's organs who did not wish it. And because it is such a stark difference, I think that opt-in is the only justifiable plan.

Now, perhaps we could change the way of expressing that option in the United States to minimize the risk of "organ theft". At the moment, it's a very piecemeal system done at the state level in fifty different ways on every individual driver's license. (At least that's how organ donation is registered in all the states I've ever lived in.) Reclaiming the non-default option is something that you don't do once in your life but something that you have to research every time you move to a new state and get a new driver's license. (And I don't know how someone who didn't have a driver's license would specify their option.) It seems very easy with such a complex system for someone who was even fervent about keeping their corpse intact to make a good-faith effort but still fail to register that last time and have their options ignored. I'd much rather people focus on the other end -- keeping the system opt-in and doing the legwork to convince people of the virtues of making that option.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby sourmìlk » Sun Apr 10, 2011 4:49 pm UTC

Tirian wrote:
Alder wrote:I don't entirely follow how making organ donations opt-out would violate the religious freedoms of those who do have issues with it, though. That's the point of being able to opt out of it!


I wouldn't express it in those words. What I would say is that there are people whose religious convictions are such that removing their organs after their death would produce at the least severe emotional distress in their mourners and their concern that the dead person's salvation has been jeopardized. (At the worst, their fears are justified and the dead person is entering the next world without their vital organs, of course, and while I don't believe such a thing I cannot disrespect someone for thinking so.)


You absolutely can. Unfalsifiable beliefs are fine when they're harmless or not intended to be recognized as fact, but if you take harmful actions on those beliefs, then you are a bad person.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby Tirian » Sun Apr 10, 2011 5:50 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:You absolutely can. Unfalsifiable beliefs are fine when they're harmless or not intended to be recognized as fact, but if you take harmful actions on those beliefs, then you are a bad person.


*shrug* It seems that you can disrespect their choices. I can't.

It sounds like you would wish for the state to essentially declare eminent domain on everyone's vital organs (except without the fair compensation) because attending to the needs of the sick is the greatest good and individual reluctance is harmful. Huh, it turns out that I can't disrespect your beliefs either, but I do hope to never live in a society that had such little regard for the diversity of beliefs of its residents.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby sourmìlk » Sun Apr 10, 2011 7:21 pm UTC

Tirian wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:You absolutely can. Unfalsifiable beliefs are fine when they're harmless or not intended to be recognized as fact, but if you take harmful actions on those beliefs, then you are a bad person.


*shrug* It seems that you can disrespect their choices. I can't.


Oh. So you mean it's not a matter of morals, it's a matter of what makes you uncomfrotable?

It sounds like you would wish for the state to essentially declare eminent domain on everyone's vital organs (except without the fair compensation) because attending to the needs of the sick is the greatest good and individual reluctance is harmful. Huh, it turns out that I can't disrespect your beliefs either, but I do hope to never live in a society that had such little regard for the diversity of beliefs of its residents.

I don't think the government should be able to judge somebody's beliefs, therefore there should be an opt-out, no matter how idiotic the reasons are for opting out. But just because it's not the government's job to judge certain beliefs as stupid doesn't mean I can't, and it doesn't mean that those beliefs aren't objectively stupid.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby jules.LT » Sun Apr 10, 2011 8:01 pm UTC

Tirian wrote:Because of that, the risk (emotional or economic, however you like) of accidentally failing to remove someone's organs even though they wouldn't have minded is far less than the risk of accidentally removing someone's organs who did not wish it. And because it is such a stark difference, I think that opt-in is the only justifiable plan.

The alternative is between risking lives or hurt feelings, and you think that the only justifyable plan is to spare those hurt feelings?

If they really think it's. important to keep their organs for the worms, they'll sign the form and get on a federal registry of non-donors which won't be affected by moving states or not getting a driver's. licence..
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

pizzazz
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:44 pm UTC

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby pizzazz » Sun Apr 10, 2011 8:30 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
Tirian wrote:
Alder wrote:I don't entirely follow how making organ donations opt-out would violate the religious freedoms of those who do have issues with it, though. That's the point of being able to opt out of it!


I wouldn't express it in those words. What I would say is that there are people whose religious convictions are such that removing their organs after their death would produce at the least severe emotional distress in their mourners and their concern that the dead person's salvation has been jeopardized. (At the worst, their fears are justified and the dead person is entering the next world without their vital organs, of course, and while I don't believe such a thing I cannot disrespect someone for thinking so.)


You absolutely can. Unfalsifiable beliefs are fine when they're harmless or not intended to be recognized as fact, but if you take harmful actions on those beliefs, then you are a bad person.


Exactly. From the point of view of whatever religious group this is, your unfalsifiable belief that God does not exist [and whatever other religious beliefs are relevant] and the actions you take based on those beliefs, are harming people by preventing them from getting into heaven (or at least that's what it seems like the belief is).

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby sourmìlk » Sun Apr 10, 2011 9:18 pm UTC

pizzazz wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:
Tirian wrote:
Alder wrote:I don't entirely follow how making organ donations opt-out would violate the religious freedoms of those who do have issues with it, though. That's the point of being able to opt out of it!


I wouldn't express it in those words. What I would say is that there are people whose religious convictions are such that removing their organs after their death would produce at the least severe emotional distress in their mourners and their concern that the dead person's salvation has been jeopardized. (At the worst, their fears are justified and the dead person is entering the next world without their vital organs, of course, and while I don't believe such a thing I cannot disrespect someone for thinking so.)


You absolutely can. Unfalsifiable beliefs are fine when they're harmless or not intended to be recognized as fact, but if you take harmful actions on those beliefs, then you are a bad person.


Exactly. From the point of view of whatever religious group this is, your unfalsifiable belief that God does not exist [and whatever other religious beliefs are relevant] and the actions you take based on those beliefs, are harming people by preventing them from getting into heaven (or at least that's what it seems like the belief is).


I don't have an unfalsifiable belief that God does not exist. I lack belief. My point of view is that, in the absence of evidence, I have no reason to believe. So, I'm not being a hypocrite, and I'm not acting on any beliefs. I make decisions based on reality, and if you have evidence that says reality is false, then it is up to you to show that is true before you make bad decisions.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

pizzazz
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:44 pm UTC

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby pizzazz » Mon Apr 11, 2011 2:33 am UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
I don't have an unfalsifiable belief that God does not exist. I lack belief. My point of view is that, in the absence of evidence, I have no reason to believe. So, I'm not being a hypocrite, and I'm not acting on any beliefs. I make decisions based on reality, and if you have evidence that says reality is false, then it is up to you to show that is true before you make bad decisions.


(deleted some nested quotations to reduce space)

First of all, your attempt at semantics fails. You believe that God does not exist, that is the exact same thing as saying you lack belief in God. Also, this belief is not falsifiable, so you have a nonfalsifiable belief.

Moreover, you seem to be missing the point. To the believers in question, length of life on Earth is of zero importance in comparison to the afterlife. What you consider to be a "bad decision" is in fact to them a very good one, and you cannot prove or disprove either stance.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby sourmìlk » Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:32 am UTC

pizzazz wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:
I don't have an unfalsifiable belief that God does not exist. I lack belief. My point of view is that, in the absence of evidence, I have no reason to believe. So, I'm not being a hypocrite, and I'm not acting on any beliefs. I make decisions based on reality, and if you have evidence that says reality is false, then it is up to you to show that is true before you make bad decisions.


(deleted some nested quotations to reduce space)


Thanks, I always forget to do that.

First of all, your attempt at semantics fails. You believe that God does not exist, that is the exact same thing as saying you lack belief in God.

Nope. If I believe there is no God, then I am certain that God doesn't exist. If I do not believe in God, then I neither confirm nor deny his existence. Belief is not a binary yes or no. I might say "do you believe that I'm holding chocolate milk in my hand?" You would almost certainly not say "I believe you" nor would you say "I don't believe you." You would make no statement and you would have no belief as to whether or not there were chocolate milk in my hand. You would not form an opinion because you don't have enough evidence to do so. That is how I view God. Lack of belief in God != Belief in a lack of God.

Moreover, you seem to be missing the point. To the believers in question, length of life on Earth is of zero importance in comparison to the afterlife. What you consider to be a "bad decision" is in fact to them a very good one, and you cannot prove or disprove either stance.

I don't have to disprove their stance. They have to prove it. Before they make a decision that may literally kill people, they better have a damn good reason for doing so. Speculative beliefs is not a valid reason.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby jules.LT » Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:55 am UTC

@pizzazz: agnosticism exists.
Now feel free to continue this debate in the appropriate thread.

Also, there are people with all kinds of weird beliefs when it comes to what should be done with corpses, but the treatment of corpses is still tightly regulated. That's because pragmatic real-world reasons like not polluting rivers with human remains or saving human lives with a dead person's organs tend to trump beliefs based on ancient texts or whatever.

Because many people feel uncomfortable with organ harvesting, we leave them the option to avoid it. I consider it a nice enough gesture.
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3055
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby Qaanol » Mon Apr 11, 2011 10:35 am UTC

@pizzazz
Spoiler:
pizzazz wrote:Exactly. From the point of view of whatever religious group this is, your unfalsifiable belief that God does not exist [and whatever other religious beliefs are relevant] and the actions you take based on those beliefs, are harming people by preventing them from getting into heaven (or at least that's what it seems like the belief is).

Methinks someone does not understand the word “unfalsifiable”. A belief is unfalsifiable if it is not falsifiable. And a belief is falsifiable if, in a universe where the belief is false, there is some possible event that could demonstrate that it is false.

For example, the belief “All swans are white” is falsifiable. In a universe where there exists a non-white swan, the event “I see a swan that is not white” suffices to show that belief is false.

Negative universal quantifiers are usually unfalsifiable. Consider the belief “Not all swans are white”. In a universe where all swans are white, the event, “I see all the swans in the universe, and they are all white” would suffice to show the belief is false, except that it is generally impossible to demonstrate that in fact every swan in the universe is being observed.

Simple negatives, however, are usually falsifiable. For instance, the belief “There are no black swans” is easily shown to be false in a universe where the are black swans, simply by observing a single black swan.

On the other hand, the belief “There is a monster under the bed, but it disappears when you look for it” is unfalsifiable. In a universe where the really is no such monster, no event can definitively show the monster is not there.

Other relevant links include Russell’s teapot, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the FSM, and of course Occam’s Razor.

pizzazz wrote:First of all, your attempt at semantics fails. You believe that God does not exist, that is the exact same thing as saying you lack belief in God. Also, this belief is not falsifiable, so you have a nonfalsifiable belief.

The semantic argument was rebutted above. However, regardless of what sourmilk does or does not believe, the belief “There is no God” is falsifiable. To wit, in a universe where there is a God, the event, “God almighty appears on earth and works miracles” disproves the belief.

Conversely, the belief “There is a God” is unfalsifiable. In a universe where there is no God, no event can demonstrate the lack of God.

pizzazz wrote:Moreover, you seem to be missing the point. To the believers in question, length of life on Earth is of zero importance in comparison to the afterlife. What you consider to be a "bad decision" is in fact to them a very good one, and you cannot prove or disprove either stance.

The belief “There is an afterlife which cannot be detected by those who are still alive” is unfalsifiable. In a universe where there is no such afterlife, no event can definitely prove there is no such afterlife.


On the subject of this thread, I’ll throw my voice behind the “opt-out” movement for organ donation post-mortem. And I support prioritizing potential organ donors as organ recipients, ahead of those who have opted out.

As far as sales of non-vital organs by living persons, well, I’m not going to weigh in on that just yet. I will, however, throw this nugget into the ring:

The US government has the power to regulate inter-state commerce, per Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution. I believe the constitution does not give the federal government the power to regulate commerce within a single state, and the 10th Amendment grants to the states and the people all powers not granted to the federal government.

Now, I’m not a lawyer, but I like to think I have an adequate grasp of logic. And to my reading, if an organ is sold from one person to another as a private transaction between citizens of the same state, then any attempt at federal prosecution could be defended by saying, “Actually, federal government, you are expressly forbidden from regulating commerce that takes place entirely within a single state.”
wee free kings

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby mmmcannibalism » Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:43 pm UTC

Now, I’m not a lawyer, but I like to think I have an adequate grasp of logic. And to my reading, if an organ is sold from one person to another as a private transaction between citizens of the same state, then any attempt at federal prosecution could be defended by saying, “Actually, federal government, you are expressly forbidden from regulating commerce that takes place entirely within a single state.”


See, that would make sense. However, from my understanding of a few drug cases, they can still prosecute you on the basis that your sale to the other person in your state changed the market for out of state organs thereby being interstate commerce.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby Silknor » Mon Apr 11, 2011 4:44 pm UTC

Qaanol wrote:As far as sales of non-vital organs by living persons, well, I’m not going to weigh in on that just yet. I will, however, throw this nugget into the ring:

The US government has the power to regulate inter-state commerce, per Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution. I believe the constitution does not give the federal government the power to regulate commerce within a single state, and the 10th Amendment grants to the states and the people all powers not granted to the federal government.

Now, I’m not a lawyer, but I like to think I have an adequate grasp of logic. And to my reading, if an organ is sold from one person to another as a private transaction between citizens of the same state, then any attempt at federal prosecution could be defended by saying, “Actually, federal government, you are expressly forbidden from regulating commerce that takes place entirely within a single state.”


This is not correct. While this is less important, a power not being listed is not the same as it being expressly forbidden. And you don't consider the necessary and proper clause. But more importantly, the Supreme Court has consistently held since 1942 that the federal government has the power to regulate transactions that do not cross state lines if such activities, in aggregate, affect interstate commerce. This was the case of Wickard v. Filburn, which upheld a law prohibiting a farmer from growing more wheat then allowed and then feeding it to his animals. In aggregate, the excess growing of wheat has a clear effect on interstate commerce. It affected wheat prices because the farmer did not need to purchase wheat for his animals.

In a more recent case, Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the Court held that the federal government may criminalize the growing for personal use of cannabis even if those actions are legals for medicinal purposes under state law. Allowing individuals to grow marijuana for medical reasons would undermine the federal government's ability to regulate interstate commerce in marijuana.
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5092
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby Xeio » Mon Apr 11, 2011 4:59 pm UTC

Tirian wrote:Because of that, the risk (emotional or economic, however you like) of accidentally failing to remove someone's organs even though they wouldn't have minded is far less than the risk of accidentally removing someone's organs who did not wish it. And because it is such a stark difference, I think that opt-in is the only justifiable plan.
Wait, how would this be any more likely under the opt-out system than the current one? You could use the exact same methods for opt-out as opt-in. Whenever you get your license/state ID, you get the prompt. Assume opt-out for anyone who hasn't had the prompt (this would not significantly alter the benefits of the opt-out, since most people will get their ID at some point).

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby Tirian » Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:29 pm UTC

Xeio wrote:
Tirian wrote:Because of that, the risk (emotional or economic, however you like) of accidentally failing to remove someone's organs even though they wouldn't have minded is far less than the risk of accidentally removing someone's organs who did not wish it. And because it is such a stark difference, I think that opt-in is the only justifiable plan.
Wait, how would this be any more likely under the opt-out system than the current one? You could use the exact same methods for opt-out as opt-in. Whenever you get your license/state ID, you get the prompt. Assume opt-out for anyone who hasn't had the prompt (this would not significantly alter the benefits of the opt-out, since most people will get their ID at some point).


I didn't suggest that a mistake is more likely under one scenario than the other. I'm saying that taking something from an unwilling donor is theft and failing to take something from a willing donor is merely inefficient, and so when there is doubt I argue that we should make the choice that minimizes regret. Same thing with the presumption of innocence in a criminal trial, because even though we might feel safer locking up borderline cases we still recognize that jailing an innocent person is far more inhumane than releasing a guilty person.

At the same time I think that the best thing to do is to strive to remove doubt by somehow finding out what percentage of the people who don't sign organ donor cards truly don't want to do it and what percentage would be willing to but are just too lazy to it and what percentage would do it in return for some reasonable accommodations that recognize that the donor is offering something of great value.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5092
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby Xeio » Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:13 pm UTC

Tirian wrote:and so when there is doubt I argue that we should make the choice that minimizes regret.
I can only imagine in this situation that the loss of life would be a greater "regret" than potentially hurting someone's feelings...
Tirian wrote:At the same time I think that the best thing to do is to strive to remove doubt by somehow finding out what percentage of the people who don't sign organ donor cards truly don't want to do it and what percentage would be willing to but are just too lazy to it and what percentage would do it in return for some reasonable accommodations that recognize that the donor is offering something of great value.
Well, we have some pretty good evidence already showing that people either are reluctant to make the decision at all (and thus, the default of opt-out/opt-in takes precedence), or there is some unknown thing that is causing people to select the default.* Are you still against opt-out in the scenario I mentioned, where we only assume opt-in for those who have been prompted for the choice at some point?

*I'd link to the TED talk video, but I'm at work and don't remember which one it is, so I can edit it in later unless someone wants to find it for me before then.

*EDIT: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_asks_are_we_in_control_of_our_own_decisions.html

EDIT2: Oh, and the relevant bit is about 6 minutes in, though as usual I suggest watching the whole thing because it's interesting. :mrgreen:

Save Point
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 5:27 am UTC

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby Save Point » Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:52 am UTC

Qaanol wrote:As far as sales of non-vital organs by living persons, well, I’m not going to weigh in on that just yet. I will, however, throw this nugget into the ring:

The US government has the power to regulate inter-state commerce, per Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution. I believe the constitution does not give the federal government the power to regulate commerce within a single state, and the 10th Amendment grants to the states and the people all powers not granted to the federal government.

Now, I’m not a lawyer, but I like to think I have an adequate grasp of logic. And to my reading, if an organ is sold from one person to another as a private transaction between citizens of the same state, then any attempt at federal prosecution could be defended by saying, “Actually, federal government, you are expressly forbidden from regulating commerce that takes place entirely within a single state.”

EDIT: Silknor got to it before me, but I'll also chime in that the Commerce Clause is a gigantic rabbit hole and I'm at the point where I consider it god-mode for the federal government, rightly or wrongly, especially ever since the Supreme Court managed to interpret it as some kind of quasi-police power.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3055
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby Qaanol » Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:01 am UTC

@ Silknor, mmmcannibalism, and Themis:
Spoiler:
mmmcannibalism wrote:See, that would make sense. However, from my understanding of a few drug cases, they can still prosecute you on the basis that your sale to the other person in your state changed the market for out of state organs thereby being interstate commerce.


Silknor wrote:And you don't consider the necessary and proper clause. But more importantly, the Supreme Court has consistently held since 1942 that the federal government has the power to regulate transactions that do not cross state lines if such activities, in aggregate, affect interstate commerce. This was the case of Wickard v. Filburn, which upheld a law prohibiting a farmer from growing more wheat then allowed and then feeding it to his animals. In aggregate, the excess growing of wheat has a clear effect on interstate commerce. It affected wheat prices because the farmer did not need to purchase wheat for his animals.

In a more recent case, Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the Court held that the federal government may criminalize the growing for personal use of cannabis even if those actions are legals for medicinal purposes under state law. Allowing individuals to grow marijuana for medical reasons would undermine the federal government's ability to regulate interstate commerce in marijuana.

I have no doubt that your statements are factually accurate and reflect valid case law. I am just disgusted that those cases were ruled in those ways.

Silknor wrote:This is not correct. While this is less important, a power not being listed is not the same as it being expressly forbidden.

But it *is* in this case, because the 10th amendment explicitly grants to the states and the people ALL powers that are NOT explicitly mentioned as powers of the federal government.

Any other interpretation of the constitution strikes me as patently false. As in, whichever justices reached the conclusion that the federal government has ANY power that is not explicitly granted to it by the constitution, were wrong in that regard. They made a decision that directly contravenes the constitution itself.

Even something as nitpicky as “the power to regulate things that are not inter-state commerce but may affect inter-state commerce” is not granted to the federal government by the constitution. More specifically, “the power to regulate commerce within a state because it may affect inter-state commerce” (for the example of drugs or kidneys within a state) and “the power to regulate something that is not commerce at all because it may affect inter-state commerce” (for the the example of the farmer growing wheat that he does not sell) are not granted to the federal government by the constitution.

Just to be clear, if I come across as vitriolic, that is not directed at any of you who replied to me. I’m arguing against the type of thinking that is exemplified by the justices who made the rulings in the cases you mentioned.

I have a sort of Waaaaaaaaaah reaction, in the sense that the judicial branch of the government has the power to review and strike down actions of the legislative and executive branches when they are unconstitutional, but there is little recourse when the justice system itself makes a ruling that appears plainly to violate the text of the constitution.

Themis wrote:EDIT: Silknor got to it before me, but I'll also chime in that the Commerce Clause is a gigantic rabbit hole and I'm at the point where I consider it god-mode for the federal government, rightly or wrongly, especially ever since the Supreme Court managed to interpret it as some kind of quasi-police power.

I don’t doubt this either, but I certainly feel that it is “wrongly” so, and wish something could be done about it.

I must agree with Xelo et al. in opposition to Tirian. Anyone who cares about opting out will opt out under and opt-out system. Anyone who doesn’t have a strong opinion one way or another will not care one way or the other. Anyone who would opt in under an opt-in system will not opt out under and opt-out system.

The people who care about the issue will end up having the same result no matter how the checkbox is worded. Wording it one way leads to vastly increased supply of life-saving organs, and greatly reduced medical costs. Wording it the other way leads to vast supplies of life-saving organs being burned or left to rot in the ground.

Kind of an easy one if you ask me.
wee free kings

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby Tirian » Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:05 am UTC

Xeio wrote:I can only imagine in this situation that the loss of life would be a greater "regret" than potentially hurting someone's feelings...


I'm growing weary of the presumption that organ theft is "hurting someone's feelings". In the classic philosophical discussion of a man stealing a loaf of bread to feed his starving family, it is rarely reduced to being an issue of the baker's hurt feelings over not being paid. It is about property that you may not appropriate for your own use EVEN if it has much greater value to you than to the person who owns it.

I watched the portion of the video talking about organ donation (and I have to confess stopping there because I didn't find it all that compelling), and it doesn't change my mind. If anything, the concept that a decision is difficult for the public to reach and therefore the government should make it to channel our confusion in a manner that they prefer is more likely to outrage me than convince me.

I should make my challenge more specific. In as much as we see that people are conflicted about whether to join the organ donation program voluntarily, we should investigate what people could be offered as an inducement to join. As I have before, I think that a financial payment if you die and your organs are then taken for transplantation (where the payments are made and the prices set by the federal repository people who maintain the waiting lists so that there is no concern that a rich person is buying their way ahead in the line) is an idea that could increase the donor supply without substantially increasing the costs of transplantation process.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3055
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby Qaanol » Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:26 am UTC

Tirian wrote:
Xeio wrote:I can only imagine in this situation that the loss of life would be a greater "regret" than potentially hurting someone's feelings...


I'm growing weary of the presumption that organ theft is "hurting someone's feelings".

Strawman. No one here is promoting organ theft.

Tirian wrote:In the classic philosophical discussion of a man stealing a loaf of bread to feed his starving family, it is rarely reduced to being an issue of the baker's hurt feelings over not being paid. It is about property that you may not appropriate for your own use EVEN if it has much greater value to you than to the person who owns it.

Strawman. No one here is promoting organ theft.

Tirian wrote:I should make my challenge more specific. In as much as we see that people are conflicted about whether to join the organ donation program voluntarily,

If you can’t bother yourself to read what others are writing and interpret what they are saying, yet still insist on responding to them, those replies of yours are worthless to the discussion.

What is actually being proposed, and referred to as “opt-out”, is this:

At some point, an individual receives a form with various options to fill out. This usually happens when getting a driver’s license. One of the options is a checkbox where the person indicates whether or not he or she will voluntarily donate his or her organ when he or she is dead. When someone who has filled out that form dies, his or her decision as indicated on that checkbox will be honored.

The topic of discussion here is whether a person should have to check the box to express a desire to voluntarily donate his or her organs after death, or whether a person should have to leave the box blank to express a desire to voluntarily donate his or her organs after death.

There is no theft involved, there is nothing mandatory involved, there are no violations of religious, property, or human rights involved. It is a question entirely of whether to word the description of a checkbox to say, “Check if you want to donate your organs”, or “Check if you do not want to donate your organs”.

Any attempt to make this purely bureaucratic decision into an “ethical” or “moral” issue is totally unfounded. Wording the checkbox one way saves more lives. No one will get “upset” or “hurt feelings” either way. There is nothing to debate.

Tirian wrote:we should investigate what people could be offered as an inducement to join.

Many of us have proposed that having priority for receiving an organ transplant if you ever need one is a fine incentive for organ donors.

Tirian wrote:As I have before, I think that a financial payment if you die and your organs are then taken for transplantation (where the payments are made and the prices set by the federal repository people who maintain the waiting lists so that there is no concern that a rich person is buying their way ahead in the line) is an idea that could increase the donor supply without substantially increasing the costs of transplantation process.

The only way this can be anything but a terrible idea is if it is also legal to sell your own non-vital organs while you are alive. Otherwise your dead body is a more valuable commodity than your living body. And if your idea applies to vital organs, it’s terrible all around.
wee free kings

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5092
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby Xeio » Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:40 am UTC

Tirian wrote:I should make my challenge more specific. In as much as we see that people are conflicted about whether to join the organ donation program voluntarily, we should investigate what people could be offered as an inducement to join.
We could do both, we could have an opt-out program with benefits. Are you just arguing for the status quo here? What exactly are the downsides of the opt-out part? Because we're not tricking or deceiving people, they have the exact same options they have now and only those that would be prompted are opted-in. The only difference being that opt-out generally has a much higher rate of participation.

Qaanol wrote:The only way this can be anything but a terrible idea is if it is also legal to sell your own non-vital organs while you are alive. Otherwise your dead body is a more valuable commodity than your living body. And if your idea applies to vital organs, it’s terrible all around.
Well, to be fair life insurance already does this.

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby Tirian » Tue Apr 12, 2011 3:51 am UTC

Qaanol wrote:
Tirian wrote:we should investigate what people could be offered as an inducement to join.

Many of us have proposed that having priority for receiving an organ transplant if you ever need one is a fine incentive for organ donors.


I'll leave most of your comment to stand on its own merits as we simply disagree with each other (in spite of my reading the thread :roll:). But among the proposals for rewarding potential organ donors, I can't believe that many people would be swayed by this offer. Anyone who requires an organ donation will see the decay of their organs coming with more than enough lead time to sign an organ donor card in order to get a preferred spot. Will it actually lead to a greater supply of organs? I've looked for research on how many donors are "refused" on death as having medically unsuitable organs and haven't found anything, so I certainly don't know if someone who spent a year on dialysis could have a great pancreas or if the entire body has been compromised beyond suitability.

Xeio wrote:What exactly are the downsides of the opt-out part? Because we're not tricking or deceiving people, they have the exact same options they have now and only those that would be prompted are opted-in. The only difference being that opt-out generally has a much higher rate of participation.


My only concern with the opt-out program (and I'll let this be my last word on the matter) is that, exactly as you say, it has a higher rate of participation with no change in people's attitudes about the program or the issue. I'm afraid that this is coercive to the majority of people who don't have the cause to think about such solemn matters when they're just trying to get a new driver's license, although perhaps coercing people into being more charitable is noble. I suppose we won't know how an opt-out system would work in the United States until some state decides to implement it. But I'm not sufficiently passionate on behalf of the apathetic as all this thread makes out, and so I will leave you to do as you will.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby mmmcannibalism » Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:23 am UTC

I'll leave most of your comment to stand on its own merits as we simply disagree with each other (in spite of my reading the thread :roll:). But among the proposals for rewarding potential organ donors, I can't believe that many people would be swayed by this offer. Anyone who requires an organ donation will see the decay of their organs coming with more than enough lead time to sign an organ donor card in order to get a preferred spot. Will it actually lead to a greater supply of organs? I've looked for research on how many donors are "refused" on death as having medically unsuitable organs and haven't found anything, so I certainly don't know if someone who spent a year on dialysis could have a great pancreas or if the entire body has been compromised beyond suitability.


I think don't let people sign up after they are seriously ill is something the system could handle. Beyond that, its not a problem if sick people can't later donate their organs, the idea is to get more people(which means more people who will have healthy organs) signed up.

My only concern with the opt-out program (and I'll let this be my last word on the matter) is that, exactly as you say, it has a higher rate of participation with no change in people's attitudes about the program or the issue. I'm afraid that this is coercive to the majority of people who don't have the cause to think about such solemn matters when they're just trying to get a new driver's license, although perhaps coercing people into being more charitable is noble. I suppose we won't know how an opt-out system would work in the United States until some state decides to implement it. But I'm not sufficiently passionate on behalf of the apathetic as all this thread makes out, and so I will leave you to do as you will.


My thinking is this, if changing the default changes what you do you probably don't really care much about the issue. For instance, if I offered you the choice everyday to be hit by a car or not, do you think changing the default would alter your choice?

(I feel like my tone may sound really abrasive, if so my apologies as its not meant to sound that way at all.)
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby Silknor » Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:59 am UTC

Qaanol wrote:
Silknor wrote:This is not correct. While this is less important, a power not being listed is not the same as it being expressly forbidden.

But it *is* in this case, because the 10th amendment explicitly grants to the states and the people ALL powers that are NOT explicitly mentioned as powers of the federal government.

Any other interpretation of the constitution strikes me as patently false. As in, whichever justices reached the conclusion that the federal government has ANY power that is not explicitly granted to it by the constitution, were wrong in that regard. They made a decision that directly contravenes the constitution itself.


While I understand your argument, I would like to point out two things I think you overlook.

The first is the Necessary and Proper Clause: "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

This alone makes the argument that the government can only do things explicitly granted to it seem implausible to me. The Necessary and Proper Clause vests Congress with implied powers. And once you accept the possibility of implied powers, you lose the easy brightline between explicitly mentioned and not explicitly mentioned. Suddenly you have a lot of gray area.

The second is that in drafting and ratifying the 10th Amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.") the Founders intentionally denied the proposal to have the word expressly added. This too makes it harder to argue that a power not explicitly given to the federal government is reserved to the states or the people.

One final note, there is recourse to fix improper judicial interpretation: an amendment.
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

Glass Fractal
Posts: 497
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 2:53 am UTC

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby Glass Fractal » Tue Apr 12, 2011 5:11 am UTC

Silknor wrote:The second is that in drafting and ratifying the 10th Amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.") the Founders intentionally denied the proposal to have the word expressly added. This too makes it harder to argue that a power not explicitly given to the federal government is reserved to the states or the people.


I don't understand that at all. What does the 10th Amendment actually do under that interpretation?

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby Silknor » Tue Apr 12, 2011 5:42 am UTC

As currently interpreted, basically nothing. There's a reason the main objection to the amendment when it was proposed was that it was unnecessary.
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3055
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby Qaanol » Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:06 am UTC

The “necessary and proper” clause vests the federal government with the authority to execute the powers delegated to it by the constitution.

The 10th amendment vests the states and the people with all other powers that are not disallowed by the constitution.

The constitution is hardly anything *but* a bright and clear line delimiting what the federal government can and cannot do.
wee free kings

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby Silknor » Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:23 am UTC

The Necessary and Proper Clause gives the federal government any and all additional powers, which are not expressly prohibited to it, which are necessary and proper to execute the explicitly granted powers. Which powers are necessary and proper is anything but clear, and will always involve judgment calls. There have been bitter debates through our nation's history over what was covered by the clause (the most famous of the early examples being the power to establish a national bank, which was ruled constitutional through implied powers).

If you ignore, or relegate to meaninglessness, the Necessary and Proper Clause, then yes, it would be pretty easy to determine what Congress can do, after all there's a list! But acknowledging the meaning the of clause denies one that option.

In the end, the only real standard of right* is whatever is presently enshrined in Supreme Court case law. After all, even among the Founders there were vigorous, and soon partisan debates, over many aspects of the Constitution's meaning, but most importantly the reach of federal power.

*Unless you have a objective way of interpreting the meaning in modern times of a document more than 225 years old.
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby jules.LT » Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:51 am UTC

Tirian wrote:My only concern with the opt-out program (and I'll let this be my last word on the matter) is that, exactly as you say, it has a higher rate of participation with no change in people's attitudes about the program or the issue. I'm afraid that this is coercive to the majority of people who don't have the cause to think about such solemn matters when they're just trying to get a new driver's license, although perhaps coercing people into being more charitable is noble. I suppose we won't know how an opt-out system would work in the United States until some state decides to implement it. But I'm not sufficiently passionate on behalf of the apathetic as all this thread makes out, and so I will leave you to do as you will.

Coercion is the wrong word: no force is used to make them choose, and no force is necessary when the time comes to implement that choice.
And the paper would be pushed under their hands often enough that this isn't trickery either.
And since organs aren't property, dead people aren't owners and due process is respected this is in no way "theft".
And there's nothing to protect the apathetic against, here: if they don't care, then no harm is done by using their organs to save lives.
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

User avatar
Gopher of Pern
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 1:28 am UTC
Location: Central Coast, Australia

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby Gopher of Pern » Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:39 am UTC

Why do we need one check box anyway?

Why can't we have one box for "Yes, take my organs!" and another box for "No, These are mine!"?

If they don't check either box, they don't get their drivers license, as the form is improperly filled out.

This way, it is neither opt-in, or opt-out. As to people without a driver's license, or other form indicating their preference one way or another, it should be immediate family who decides. If there is no-one, then the body reverts to the state, like their possesions would, and so organs can be harvested.

This way a majority of people will have indicated their preference, whether they care or not.

On the issue of legalising (it is spelt with an 's', dammit!) organ sales, I'm in favour of it. Obviously there will be checks for healthiness of the donor, and I would say a similar system to sperm donors should be used, to prevent doctors from pushing through unhealthy donors onto their recipients because of lack of supply, if indeed there is a lack of supply.
Look In My Face
Stare In My Soul
I Begin To Stupefy

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby sourmìlk » Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:52 am UTC

Gopher of Pern wrote:Why do we need one check box anyway?

Why can't we have one box for "Yes, take my organs!" and another box for "No, These are mine!"?

If they don't check either box, they don't get their drivers license, as the form is improperly filled out.


This has the same problems as the opt-in system: for whatever reason, requiring the user to actively check a box makes him think about it more than it would if he didn't have to do anything at all.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Gopher of Pern
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 1:28 am UTC
Location: Central Coast, Australia

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby Gopher of Pern » Wed Apr 13, 2011 6:34 am UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
Gopher of Pern wrote:Why do we need one check box anyway?

Why can't we have one box for "Yes, take my organs!" and another box for "No, These are mine!"?

If they don't check either box, they don't get their drivers license, as the form is improperly filled out.


This has the same problems as the opt-in system: for whatever reason, requiring the user to actively check a box makes him think about it more than it would if he didn't have to do anything at all.


Um, what problems? The whole point here is to make sure we don't take organs off people who don't want them taken from them after they die. This way ensures everyone gets a fair choice.
Look In My Face
Stare In My Soul
I Begin To Stupefy

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby sourmìlk » Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:31 am UTC

Gopher of Pern wrote:Um, what problems? The whole point here is to make sure we don't take organs off people who don't want them taken from them after they die. This way ensures everyone gets a fair choice.


The problem is that with an opt-in system, people who are ambivalent about the issue tend not to donate their organs, while with an opt-out system, people who are ambivalent tend to donate their organs. We shouldn't create a system where people default to immorality.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby jules.LT » Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:37 am UTC

To be fair, forcing them to actively check one box is the way to do it that respects people's opinions best.
That way, people who don't care that much but are mildly uncomfortable with it (I'd venture to say that this is most people) will maybe opt out.

The point is that sometimes, for the sake of society, it's good to push people in the right direction. This isn't even forcing people to do what you want, it's allowing them to do the wrong thing if they care enough about it to tick a box. Not many societal choices made by the state have an opt-out option like that.

The implications in terms of lives saved are major and the extent to which people's opinions are ignored is very minor. To me it's a no-brainer, but I understand how it could not be so for some people.
Once again, I'm happy that I live in a society where what I consider the right choice has been made.
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby sourmìlk » Wed Apr 13, 2011 10:12 am UTC

jules.lt wrote:To be fair, forcing them to actively check one box is the way to do it that respects people's opinions best.


Not really. Deciding whether or not there should be an opt-in or an opt-out option doesn't make it so people act on their opinions, it actually changes their opinions. If there's an opt-out option, people don't think about it deeply enough to even form the opinion that they find it creepy, so nobody's opinions are being disrespected. It's just creating a system in which immorality isn't the default for ambivalent people.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5092
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby Xeio » Wed Apr 13, 2011 1:17 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:Deciding whether or not there should be an opt-in or an opt-out option doesn't make it so people act on their opinions, it actually changes their opinions.
What is your basis for that exactly? It can change the choice they make, given that they were more likely to skip the question, or not choose at all, but how does it make them any more for or against organ donation?

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: It costs an arm and a leg..or kidney: legalizing organ s

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Wed Apr 13, 2011 1:22 pm UTC

sourmìlk: OK, so if your plan doesn't disrespect people's opinions, it disrespects actual people. As you yourself just said, the point of your plan is to avoid giving people a chance to make the decision themselves. By your own admission, the intent is to prevent people who would otherwise disagree with you from making an informed decision.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests