Presumed consent for organsFollow

Hard to disagree with those words, but substitute 'mankind' or 'society' for 'the state', it feels less oppressive.

For one thing, I'm alive and using my money & body right now. I'm using neither once I'm dead. If you die without a will, the default option is that the state is delighted to take most (if not all) of your estate. If you want to "opt out" of this, you write a will. Opting-out of organ donation isn't so different.

Taxidermy?

Ok, just to re-emphasise the point:

Organ donations happen when you're *dead*.

Dead.

You won't know it, you won't feel it, you will never, ever, ever, feel the effects of this donations. Most organs that are donated are interntal organs anyway, so even your family looking at your corpse will, in all likelihood, not notice it. The negative impact on you and your loved ones will be 0, while the positive impact on some other human being will be possibly greater than anything you've ever done for a stranger.

The state won't *own* anything, you can always say "no", and it doesn't have to apply to people under 18. What's the harm? Seriously, what is the downside to this? Do some people really care so little for others that they'd prefer to let them die rather than being useful to them?

The harm is that if you make it an opt out instead of an opt in, then the state *does* own your body when you die by default. You have to say no to prevent this from happening. This reverses the normal assumption of property rights (among many other icky issues).

The harm is that right now, if someone dies and they don't have their ID on them or they are a John Doe, the state doesn't assume they wanted to donates parts of their body. They have to find documentation on your stating otherwise. What happens when someone who opted out but died without the paperwork stating this on him gets his organs harvested? How exactly do you manage this? The whole point of making the legal change is to simply do it automatically, right? I assume therefore that no paperwork is required and no approval need be sought (otherwise it defeats the purpose of the change).




Because it's their body? You just can't go around legislatively requiring people to be charitable. If someone wants to donate their organs on their death, that's a wonderful thing. But it's a gift. You don't require that people give them, or it loses meaning...


Damn Liberal crazies! ;)

The harm is that right now, if someone dies and they don't have their ID on them or they are a John Doe, the state doesn't assume they wanted to donates parts of their body. They have to find documentation on your stating otherwise. What happens when someone who opted out but died without the paperwork stating this on him gets his organs harvested?

Someone who's fucking ALIVE gets to live longer?

Yeah, huge moral hazard there.

Of course not. The state would only be allowed to take one of your organs if it was needed to save a life.

Unless you had said no previously, or unless your family says you wouldn't have wanted to.

Did you even read the damn article?



How? Seriously, how does it "reverse the normal assumption of property rights"? Your body is as much yours as it was before while you're alive. Or do you mean the property rights of dead people? Like how dead people "own" their body? Man, what did you smoke today?

And anyway, the concept of owning your body is quaint. In times of conscription, you don't "own" enough of your body to prevent it from being blown up by the ennemy. Today, you don't even "own" your own DNA. And some people trying to prevent abortions clearly have something to say about "property rights" on your own body.

And all of that, is while you're alive. You know, when nothing would change anyway.



On which planet? Gbajinus? Is it nice? What's the weather like?



Then the state contacts their family and asks them.



By having a thousand monkeys at a thousand body harvesters? By having hyenas eating dead people and then making them puke on the operating table? Am I getting warm?



And what did we say about assumptions?



And that's the rationale. According to polls in the UK, a solid majority of people want to donate their organ once they die, but the donor list only has 25% of people on it. So they figured, we do the opt-out so that the people who didn't object to donating while alive, and whose family neither object nor think the deceased would've objected had he been asked, can potentially be used as organ donors. It's makes sense on many levels.

Look, I'll be honest. I'm not really that militant much about presumed consent for organ donations. I mean I'm in favour, but I wouldn't go to a demonstration on the subject. I understand it can be an emotional issue, the topics involved are not easy, death, organ transplant, grief, etc... But if anyone can make counter-arguments stupid enough to convince its the best idea since sliced bread, man, that person is you.

The rights of dead people? Of meat? The rights of remains?

Nexa

After all my organs are donated to telemarketers, I want my bones and skin to be used to make shelters for sluts milking the welfare system. Be the buffalo man, be the buffalo.

Nexa