Change my view

[Daemon]

It's really not that complicated. Default opt-in is far better for society than any alternative. Why not help your fellow human beings out when it costs you literally nothing. Why must anyone waste resources to 'convince' you to donate?

Agree with burgey that letting the market or the industry decide a price for organs leaves room for a lot of scary things. It'll hit the poor the hardest (even if they might make a few bucks through their deceased).

 

[Victor Ian]

I agree with all that. To me, there is nothing more a dead body can do other than help another, including letting it all go to help medical students learn. But I do have concerns about how difficult it could be to opt out. Some people don't want their bodies chopped up. That should be respected in the same vein as why would you buy a cake from someone who doesn't want you to have it.

 

[harsh.ag]

Harsh's entire argument is based on doing good things in order to be acknowledged for it. Hence being known as unpredictable is favourable - so when you do something good, you get praised, vs people just expecting it to be the norm.

I don't think that's why you should be good, but just working off the premise, being known as a consistently good person is preferable in most situations than being known as an ethically ambiguous person who sometimes does good things. Who would you rather be friends with, for instance? Or hire to work for you? Or get into a relationship with?

Maybe for your own ego and satisfaction you would like to be patted on the back for every single good thing you do, and therefore you cultivate a persona to ensure that happens, but then I'd just suggest that if that's your motivation to be good, then you're not actually a good person anyways. You're just in it for the endorphins. And that's probably a good strategy to get lots of endorphins with.

Didn't say people should be good for praise, nor do I think that.

When it comes to relationships and work, those people will know your idea of being good via actions rather than talk.

It's not about getting praise and satiating the ego per se, but about not being taken for granted.

 

[Ikki]

Donating organs for money should be legal and taking someone's organs without their (or whoever they wish to empower after their death) permission should be illegal. I don't care how much you think that decision is supposed to benefit the public good. The public don't own your body. It's enough that they tax you for what you make while you're alive.

In Iran this is actually a common thing poor people resort to. As undesirable as it is, I leave the decision to them whether the money is enough of a help to them to persuade them to forgo an organ. No other person should have the right to coerce them into that choice, no one else is living with the repercussions.

 

[zorax]

Technically no one lives with the repercussions of donating their organs either

And @Harsh - why does it matter if you get taken for granted or not?

 

[harsh.ag]

Because it's costly.

 

[sledger]

People should donate their organs, absolutely. But the idea that doing so should be mandatory (even though I can see precisely why such a notion is appealing) is just not right for mine. The entire rationale behind people being allowed to make testamentory dispositions is to ensure some post-mortem control or influence over vital aspects of their personhood and/or something that is important and valuable to them. If we accept that testamentory dispositions are in themselves a sound concept (which for me, they unquestionably are), it would be backward for the law to allow people to make testatmentory dispositions in relation to their property but not to their own bodies, as this would imply that a person's property is more closely alligned to their personhood/more important to them than their own bodies, which is clearly a nonsense.

The overriding public interest argument, as it is in many contexts, is completely unconvincing.

 

[Daemon]

Donating organs for money should be legal and taking someone's organs without their (or whoever they wish to empower after their death) permission should be illegal. I don't care how much you think that decision is supposed to benefit the public good. The public don't own your body. It's enough that they tax you for what you make while you're alive..

Nobody is saying it should be legal.

Interested to hear why the public interest argument doesn't work here? @sledger too.

 

[StephenZA]

I have no real view on the opt -in/out system, I do understand why people feel concerned by the opt-out system; but I`m fully aware that most people are lazy and that while they may be fine with donating, they will never opt-in because it takes an extra thought and 5 minutes of their time.

 

[sledger]

Nobody is saying it should be legal.

Interested to hear why the public interest argument doesn't work here? @sledger too.

Because the public interest argument necessarily penalises and persecutes minorities.

 

[Uppercut]

People should donate their organs, absolutely. But the idea that doing so should be mandatory (even though I can see precisely why such a notion is appealing) is just not right for mine. The entire rationale behind people being allowed to make testamentory dispositions is to ensure some post-mortem control or influence over vital aspects of their personhood and/or something that is important and valuable to them. If we accept that testamentory dispositions are in themselves a sound concept (which for me, they unquestionably are), it would be backward for the law to allow people to make testatmentory dispositions in relation to their property but not to their own bodies, as this would imply that a person's property is more closely alligned to their personhood/more important to them than their own bodies, which is clearly a nonsense.

The overriding public interest argument, as it is in many contexts, is completely unconvincing.

Nobody suggested that it should be mandatory. The argument was between opt-in and opt-out.

 

[sledger]

Nobody suggested that it should be mandatory. The argument was between opt-in and opt-out.

Oops. My bad for not reading properly.

Anyway, in that case it needs to be opt-in for mine.

Opt-out consent isn't consent at all in my view, as are any types of consent that are not expressed by some clear positive action.

 

[Uppercut]

Oops. My bad for not reading properly.

Anyway, in that case it needs to be opt-in for mine.

Opt-out consent isn't consent at all in my view, as are any types of consent that are not expressed by some clear positive action.

Surely then you would also need to object to someone's body being cremated or buried in the absence of a will?

 

[sledger]

Executor of Estate to decide imo.

 

[StephenZA]

Its not like donation is not considered after death by those nearest and dearest; it is a pretty horrible job for a dr/nurse to have to come to somebody and ask if they are willing to consider donation, particularly considering it would be right after the death. Pretty emotional time that. Forcing people to think and talk about it before that point would maybe be more sensible on everybody.

 

[sledger]

Its not like donation is not considered after death by those nearest and dearest; it is a pretty horrible job for a dr/nurse to have to come to somebody and ask if they are willing to consider donation, particularly considering it would be right after the death. Pretty emotional time that. Forcing people to think and talk about it before that point would maybe be more sensible on everybody.

Yeah, generally agree, but I think this is one of those "In an ideal world..." type solutions.

 

[Uppercut]

Executor of Estate to decide imo.

Yeah, I guess this isn't really practical for most organ donations.

There are probably plenty of solutions that satisfy both your categorical imperative surrounding post-death body ownership and my jesus-christ-just-save-the-****ing-dying-child angle. "Tick here if you do not want your organs to be used..." on various bureaucratic forms, for example.

 

[sledger]

Yeah, I guess this isn't really practical for most organ donations.

There are probably plenty of solutions that satisfy both your categorical imperative surrounding post-death body ownership and my jesus-christ-just-save-the-****ing-dying-child angle. "Tick here if you do not want your organs to be used..." on various bureaucratic forms, for example.

If you change that to "tick here if you agree" and I think we're onto a winner.

 

[StephenZA]

If you change that to "tick here if you agree" and I think we're onto a winner.

Even that is a bit dodgy.... the number of times I have had to ask for a new form because the bank/government official just auto ticked boxes is pretty common...

 

[Daemon]

If you change that to "tick here if you agree" and I think we're onto a winner.

This isn't how it works in most developed countries using opt-in?

I'd have thought every person upon turning 18-21 would receive a letter asking them to indicate their preference online or something.

For opt-out in Singapore it's the same, you get a letter at 21 and you go online to deregister if you're a dick.